Great Works River Nonpoint Source Pollution Watershed Management Plan
A Maine Department of Environmental Protection 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Project
Prepared by York County Soil & Water Conservation District January 2007
1
2 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
Great Works River Watershed (GWR) Nonpoint Source Pollution
Management Plan
Prepared by Forrest Bell, York County Soil & Water Conservation District in cooperation with the Great Works River Watershed Coalition, and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
This project was funded, in part, by an EPA Section 319 grant.
January 2007
The mission of the York County Soil & Water Conservation District is to provide technical, educational, and financial resources to land users in York County to promote a quality of life, stewardship and wise use of our natural resources and ensure the viability of the agricultural sector.
Contact: York County Soil & Water Conservation District 21 Bradeen Street, Suite 104 Springvale, Maine 04083 207-324-0888 email: [email protected]
I would like to personally thank the individuals on the following page for providing outstanding community support in this watershed and region. The citizen volunteers tirelessly assisting the GWRWC, Bauneg Beg Lake Association, York Co SWCD Board, local land trusts, and local municipalities are a true inspiration to all of us working in the conservation and environmental management field. It is obvious that one of the most important resources in this watershed is its citizens. - Forrest Bell, Project Manager
i Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
Acknowledgements
GWRWC Steering Committee Mike Cannon, South Berwick Nancy Freese, Noble HS Katie Goulet, North Berwick Malcolm Child, South Berwick Ray Smith, North Berwick, BBLA Forrest Bell, York County SWCD
Watershed Survey Volunteers
Debbie Briggs Bob Hoey Sarah McNair Jeff Brinck Lorraine Hoey Jodi Michaud Bill Bullard Julie Hundley Dwight Montague Laurie Callahan Bruce Jordan Dick Moore Erica Carlsen Shiela Jordan Jan Moore Brad Christo Don Kale Jamie Schoedinger Jean Demetracopoulos Thomas Keating Sarah Schoedinger John Demeteracopoulos Jack Kelleher Marilyn Smith-Church Betsy Finigan Debbie Kreis Rick & Kiki Stevens Donna Flint David Ladd Deb St. Pierre Margo Foreman Tony Lombardi Tin Smith John Forshay Richard Lovejoy Jeff Varricchione Teegan French Nancy Lowenberg Bayse Andra Ventimigelia David Gagnon Fred Luiggi Tony Welch Wendy Garland Linda Luiggi Bill Whaley Heather Girard Renie Martin Ann Whitten Kate Goulet Dan May GWR Watershed Coalition Steve Gray Sue May Owen Hill Jim McGuire
Technical Staff Additional Reviewers Forrest Bell, YCSWCD Don Kale, Maine DEP Jennifer Jespersen, FB Environmental Tin Smith, Wells NERR Tricia Rouleau, FB Environmental Mike Cannon, GWRWC Fred Dillon, FB Environmental Wendy Garland, Maine DEP Nancy Freese, GWRWC Glenn Wilde, YCSWCD Ray Smith, BBLA
Project Funding and Support Maine Department of Environmental Protection US Environmental Protection Agency
ii Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ...... ii List of Figures ...... vi List of Tables...... vii List of Maps ...... viii Key to Abbreviations ……………………………………….…………….……… ix
1. Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Description of Watershed ...... 1 1.3 Water Quality Summary ...... 1 1.4 Summary of Watershed Surveys and Threats to Water Quality…… 2 1.5 Stakeholder Involvement ...... 3 1.6 Plan Goal and Objectives ...... 4 1.7 Prioritization of Identified Nonpoint Sources ...... 4 1.8 Prevention Strategy ...... 5 1.9 Best Management Practices ...... 5
2. Description of the Watershed 2.1 Location ...... 6 2.2 Watershed Map ...... 7 2.3 Physical Features (Topography, Soils)...... 7 2.4 Water Resources ...... 8 2.5 Land Resources ……………………………………………….…….… 9 2.6 Fish Assemblage………………………………………………....…….. 10 2.7 Land Usage ...... 11 2.8 Water Usage: Impoundments…………………………………………. 12
3. Water Quality Assessment 3.1 Classification ...... 14 3.2 Summary of Available Data (Temp, DO, TP, E. coli) ...... 14 3.3 Summary of Bauneg Beg Lake Water Quality……………………….. 20
iii Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
4. Water Quality Goals and Objectives 4.1 Goals ...... 20 4.2 Objectives ...... 20
5. NPS Inventory and Assessment 5.1 Methods ...... 21 5.2 Watershed Survey Segment Map ...... 22 5.3 Nonpoint Source Survey Observations ...... 23
6. Threats to Water Quality 6.1 Survey Results ...... 23 6.2 Priority Ranking of NPS Sites ...... 24 6.3 Soil Erosion ...... 26 6.4 Direct Flow ...... 27 6.5 Bare Soil ...... 27 6.6 Inadequate Buffers ...... 28 6.7 Culverts ...... 29 6.8 Animal Waste...... 29
7. Best Management Practices 7.1 NPS Pollution Control Actions ...... 30
8. Regulations 8.1 Current Laws …………………………………………………………….. 33 8.2 Structures ………………………………………………………………... 34 8.3 Clearing of Vegetation …………………………………………………. 34 8.4 Aquifer Protection ……………………………………………………….. 34 8.5 Flood Protection …………………………………………………………. 35
9. Implementation 9.1 Plan Oversight……...... 39 9.2 Action Plan ...... 40 9.3 Actions to Achieve Self-Sustaining ...... 42 9.4 Evaluation Plan ...... 42
iv Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………... 43
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES CITED…………...………………….. 43
APPENDICES A. Glossary of Terms ...... 47 B. Rare Plants, Natural Communities and Animals ...... 48 C. BMP Cost Estimates ………………..……………………………..….…. 50 D. NPS Survey Observations……………………………………….…..…… 51 E. Watershed Maps ...... 73 F. Special Insert - Bauneg Beg Lake Water Quality ………………….. 84
v Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
List of Figures
Figure 2.7.1. Land Uses in the GWR Watershed ………………………………… 11
Figure 3.2.1. GWR Volunteer Efforts 2002 -2005………………………………... 14
Figure 3.2.2. Average Temperature in the Mainstem of the GWR…...……...... 15
Figure 3.2.3. DO Violations in the Mainstem of the GWR ………….…….……. 16
Figure 3.2.4. DO Violation in Tributaries of the GWR ………………………...… 16
Figure 3.2.5. Average Tributary DO Concentrations …………………...………. 17
Figure 3.2.6. Total Phosphorus Exceedence - Mainstem of the GWR………… 18
Figure 3.2.7. E. coli Violations- Mainstem of the GWR…………………….…… 18
Figure 3.2.8. Mean E. coli Counts– Goodall Brook……………………………… 19
Figure 6.1.1. Nonpoint Source (NPS) Observations by Land Use Type……… 23
Figure 6.1.2. Summary of NPS Observations ………………………………….. 23
Figure 6.2.1. Priority Ranking Summary for NPS Sites………………………… 25
vi Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
List of Tables
Table 2.4.1. Great Ponds in the GWR Watershed ………………………………. 8
Table 2.7.1. Impoundments in the GWR Watershed …………………………….. 13
Table 9.2.1. NPS Action Plan ………………………………………………………… 36
Table B.1. Rare Plants, Natural Communities and Animals …………………….. 48
Table D.1. 1999 Bauneg Beg Nonpoint Source Survey Observations…………. 51
Table D.2. 2000 GWR (south) Nonpoint Source Survey Observations…….…. 62
Table D.3. 2004 NGWR (north) Nonpoint Source Survey Observations.……... 68
vii Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
List of Maps
Great Works River Subwatersheds ……………………………… Inside Front Cover
Map 1 Watershed Survey Segment Map …………………………………...… 73
Map 2 Soil Erosion Potential …………………………………………………….. 74
Map 3 Water Resources & Riparian Habitat …………………………………… 75
Map 4 Conservation Lands ………………………………………………………. 76
Map 5 Natural Areas & Wildlife Habitat ………………………………………… 77
Map 6 Land Cover Types ……………………………………………..…………. 78
Map 7 Impoundments ………………………………………………….………….. 79
Map 8 High Impact and High Priority Survey Sites……………………………… 80
Map 9 Special Flood Hazard Areas ……………………………………………… 81
Map 10 Undeveloped Blocks ……………………………..………………………. 82
Map 11 Aerial Photo ……………………………………………………………..… 83
viii Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
The following is a list of the full names and abbreviations of agencies and organiza- tions referred to throughout this document.
BBLA Bauneg Beg Lake Association GWRLT Great Works River Land Trust GWRWC Great Works River Watershed Coalition FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency Maine DIFW Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife MEDEP Maine Department of Environmental Protection MEGIS Maine Office of Geographic Information Systems MEMA Maine Emergency Management Agency MEDOC Maine Department of Conservation MGS Maine Geological Survey MNAP Maine Natural Areas Program MSPO Maine State Planning Office NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service SMRPC Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission UMCE University of Maine Cooperative Extension USDA United States Department of Agriculture USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWGOM US Fish & Wildlife Service, Gulf of Maine Program YCSWCD York County Soil and Water Conservation District
Other Commonly Used Abbreviations
BMPs Best Management Practices NPS Nonpoint Source Pollution DO Dissolved Oxygen TP Total Phosphorus GWR Great Works River
ix
= Great Works River Watershed Management Plan (GWR)
1. Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction The GWR watershed is located in York County in southwestern Maine. The watershed encompasses an 84 square mile area within the towns of South Berwick, North Berwick, Berwick, York, Wells and Sanford. This plan represents another step towards the prevention of nonpoint source pollution in the Great Works River and its tributaries, and the downstream Salmon Falls River Estuary. The goal of this plan is to advance locally supported water quality goals, objectives and action strategies for protecting the Great Works River and its tributaries. Information about the watershed’s specific NPS pollution problems and natural resources have been collected and incorporated into the plan in order to guide long-term watershed protection and enhancement efforts utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs).
1.2 Description of Watershed The watershed area consists of a variety of land uses including forested, developed, agricultural and wetlands. The main stem of the Great Works River flows south and southwesterly from Sanford over approximately 23 miles to the Salmon Falls River in South Berwick. The Salmon Falls River meets with the Cocheco River to form the Piscataqua River, which flows into the Atlantic Ocean at the Maine and New Hampshire border.
1.3 Water Quality Summary The Great Works River (GWR) and its tributaries have been degraded by polluted runoff and are listed as a High Priority watershed on the Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s Nonpoint Source Priority Watersheds List. The river is the primary nonpoint source contributor cited in the Phased TMDL for the Salmon Falls River. Phosphorus, a nutrient of particular concern for the Salmon Falls River Estuary,
1 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 occurs in excessive amounts there, and results in frequent algal blooms. Valuable shellfish beds in these downstream estuaries are adversely affected by polluted runoff from the GWR. Water quality data for the GWR has been collected since 2002 by the GWR Watershed Coalition. High levels of fecal coliform have been found in the main stem of the GWR and several tributaries following rainfall. Data collected from 2003-2005 show that E. coli levels Water quality violations in both the mainstem and tributaries of have increased over this time period. Although DO the GWR include low levels of levels have improved in the main stem of the river dissolved oxygen, high levels of since 2003, several tributaries continue to exhibit low total phosphorus and E. coli contamination. dissolved oxygen levels, including West Brook and Chick’s Brook. A 2005 water quality monitoring report for the GWR and its tributaries specifically highlighted Goodall Brook, located at the head of the GWR, as a source of contaminated stormwater.
1.4 Summary of Watershed Surveys and Threats to Water Quality To improve the efficiency of surveying the expansive watershed area, it was essential to phase the watershed survey into several smaller focus areas over time. Since 1999, three watershed surveys have been conducted in the GWR Watershed. The first study, focused on the areas adjacent to the shoreline of Bauneg Beg Lake. The second survey, conducted in 2000, focused on a 68 square mile area below Bauneg Beg Lake to the southern tip of the watershed where the GWR meets the Salmon Falls River. The third survey, conducted in 2004, focused on the remaining portion of the Northern Great Works River Watershed north of Bauneg Beg Lake, including the Goodall Brook Watershed. Volunteers were an instrumental part of the watershed surveys, and were solicited by Steering Committee members and technical staff.
Surveyors ranked problem sites throughout The watershed based on the following criteria:
• Impact to surface water quality Volunteers paddle down the Great Works River collecting information on water quality. • Technical skill level to install BMPs • Estimated cost to install BMPs
2 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
The results identified the following as the major nonpoint pollution sources:
• Soil erosion (especially near roads and shorelines) • Direct flow (overland to streams and ponds) • Bare soil • Inadequate vegetative buffers • Poorly functioning culverts • Inadequate ditches
Less frequently observed structures or activities having a negative impact on the quality of water resources were:
• Construction activities • Stream channel alteration • Poorly shaped roads • Livestock in stream • Trash and debris • Excess road sand • Septic back-up • Roof runoff • Soil stockpiles • Horse paddock
A total of 516 NPS observations were recorded across 275 sites of concern for Eighty percent (80%) of the identified nonpoint source pollution sites throughout nonpoint source pollution in the three surveys. the watershed were rated as medium or Sixty-five (65) of these sites were ranked high high priority for remediation. The major- priority, one hundred fifty-five (155) ranked ity of these sites were located on roads, driveways, parking lots, or residential moderate, and twenty-three (23) ranked low properties. priority. Thirty-two (32) sites did not have a priority ranking.
1.5 Stakeholder Involvement The GWR Watershed Management Plan is part of a long-term effort initiated and supported by a number of agencies (York County Soil & Water Conservation District (YCSWCD), University of Maine Cooperative Extension (UMCE), Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP), United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)), organizations (Great Works River Watershed Coalition (GWRWC), Bauneg Beg Lake Association (BBLA), Great Works River Land Trust (GWRLT), Mousam Way Land Trust, Three Rivers land Trust), towns (Sanford, North Berwick, South Berwick, Berwick, York, and Wells), and individuals. These partners have been meeting and working on watershed
3 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 issues since 2000. Additionally, more than 50 active volunteers have contributed their time and energy into conducting three separate watershed surveys, participating in watershed planning, and sampling for water quality since 2001.
The doubling of volunteer efforts in the GWR since 2002 is a positive sign that education and outreach is working. Members of the GWRWC and community members discuss water quality goals and objectives at a 2005 community forum. 1.6 Plan Goal and Objectives In the spring of 2005, following 319 funding to help assess and reduce phosphorus loads to the Great Works River, a diversity of partner groups with stewardship interests in the Great Works River watershed came together to form a steering committee. The steering committee is led by the GWRWC. Their mission is to help improve and protect the water quality of the Great Works River and its tributaries. The steering committee identified the following objectives:
• Assess the water quality and uses of waterbodies within the watershed. • Inventory the types of land use and the types and severity of NPS pollution. • Evaluate the types and severity of factors that may be affecting water quality. • Determine which NPS controls are necessary to improve/protect water quality. • Develop and implementation strategy to address NPS pollution. • Inform eligible landowners about importance of BMP implementation. • Achieve self-sustaining financial support of the plan. • Evaluate the Management Plan following implementation.
1.7 Prioritization of Identified Nonpoint Sources Twenty-four percent (24%) of identified NPS sites from all three watershed surveys ranked as high priority, while more than half (56%) ranked as medium priority. Suspected sources of NPS pollution were ranked based upon three criteria: the expected impact they would have on the watershed, the technical skill level to install the BMPs, and how much the BMPs would cost. A problem site with a high impact rating, low technical skill level and low cost scored as a high priority, since fixing it would result in the greatest improvement for the least amount of money. Sites with 4 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 lower scores (8%) are also worthy of The greatest concentration of high priority and consideration but should receive high impacts sites are located in the highly ur- attention after the higher priority sites banized Goodall Brook subwatershed, and around the shores of Bauneg Beg Lake . The are addressed. Sites without a priority GWR Action Plan calls for remediation of these ranking should be revisited in the future. high priority and high impact sites first.
1.8 Prevention Strategy Watershed partners can implement a variety of techniques to manage nonpoint pollution inputs, referred to collectively as Best Management Practices (BMPs). They can also review and change activities, regulations, and community awareness to reduce the occurrence of new sources of pollution. In the GWR watershed, volunteers and partners identified a variety of NPS inputs. The most frequently encountered inputs include: direct overland flow to stream/lake, surface erosion (on residential lots, driveways and roads), shoulder erosion (roads), lack of adequate buffers (around lakes and streams), and unstable culverts. The development of an NPS Action Plan should help watershed groups effectively address these NPS inputs.
1.9 Best Management Practices (BMPs) BMPs are techniques, measures or structural controls implemented to reduce potential pollutant generation and/or facilitate pollutant removal in storm water runoff (USEPA, 1999). There are three general types of BMPs: structural, non-structural and housekeeping. Thought of as the “hard” BMPs, structural BMPs are engineered and constructed systems used to treat the storm water at either the point of generation or the point of discharge to the stormwater system or receiving waters. Soil reinforcement techniques
This property along the Great Works River lacks an ade- An eroding access road in South Berwick requires BMPs quate buffer. Revegetating 50 feet back from the shoreline such as crowing, regular maintenance, ditches and diver- would help minimize NPS pollution. sion of runoff to buffer areas.
5 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 use geotextile fabrics and rip rap. Water conveyance BMPs include culvert installation, vegetated/riprap waterways. Water Detention BMPs include sediment pond construc- tion, sediment traps and construction dewatering (MEDEP, 2006a). In 2003 total phosphorus and E. coli were added to the list of parameters, as well as sampling of additional tributaries. Samples were collected every other Saturday from May through September (approximately 9 times a year). Non-structural BMPs can be thought of as the “soft” BMPs. These include a range of management and development practices designed to limit the conversion of rainfall to runoff and to prevent pollutants from entering runoff at the source of runoff generation. Examples of non-structural BMPs include temporary soil stabilization tech- niques such as mulching and vegetating loose soil at a construction site, but may also include education to prevent the generation of pollutants in runoff (USEPA, 1999). BMPs used to prevent sediment movement include sediment barriers, check dams, and dust control techniques. Permanent soil stabilization BMPs in this category in- clude grading and slope protection, establishing vegetation and mulching, and using vegetated buffers. A third, underutilized BMP category includes the Managerial and Housekeeping BMPs. Managerial BMPs involve dust control, fertilizer and pesticide management are also important. Housekeeping BMPs include street sweeping and household hazard- ous waste disposal (MDEQ, 1998), cleaning out clogged culverts and ensuring estab- lishment of vegetation. BMPs in the GWR watershed fall under all three categories, yet the majority fall into the non-structural and housekeeping BMPs.
2. Description of the Watershed 2.1 Location The Great Works River watershed covers 84 square miles in the towns of Sanford, North Berwick, Berwick, South Berwick, Wells, and York in the southwestern corner of the State. The main stem of the Great Works River flows south and southwesterly from Sanford to the Salmon Falls River in South Berwick. In the upper portion of the water- shed, the river flows in a south-easterly direction into Bauneg Beg Pond, a 188-acre impounded waterbody located in North Berwick and Sanford. The Great Works River is a tributary of the Salmon Falls River, which forms the boundary between Maine and New Hampshire for it’s entire length of more than 40 miles. The Salmon Falls River meets with the Cocheco River in South Berwick to form the Piscataqua River which flows into the Atlantic Ocean, forming a tidal estuary, at the Maine and New Hampshire border. The Piscataqua River is a critical part of the larger Great Bay estuary, which is 6 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 an estuary of national importance.
2.2 Watershed Map See Watershed Map inside front cover.
2.3 Physical Features The Great Works River receives water from several tributaries within eleven (11) subwatersheds (see Map Inside Cover) including the highly developed Goodall Brook to the north east. The Great Works River watershed drains an area of 84 square miles (53,760 acres) and includes over 192 miles of rivers and streams, a lake and pond sur- face area of 651 acres, and approximately 7,800 acres of wetlands. The average an- nual precipitation is approximately 46 inches (USDA, 2005).
Topography The Great Works River flows primarily north to south originating in Sanford, which is approximately 400 feet above sea level. Topography in the southern part of the water- shed includes rocky hills and ridges ranging from 300 to 692 feet. Mount Agamenticus (692 feet), located on the southern border of the watershed, is the most notable peak in this area. The highest point in the watershed is Bauneg Beg Mountain (862 feet), located on the western border of the watershed in the town of North Berwick. In parts of Sanford, Wells, and Berwick, the elevation drops to between 100 and 200 feet where the landscape is characterized by extensive wetlands.
Soils There are four general soil associations in the watershed: Colton-Adams-Sebago, Dixfield-Colonial-Lyman-Brayton, Adams-Croghan-Naumburg, and Scantic-Lamoine- Buxton-Lyman. Soils in the watershed are predominantly sandy loams or loamy sands derived from glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine parent materials. Smaller areas of peat, silt loam, and gravel are scattered throughout the watershed. Rock outcrops are found throughout the northeast and southwest corners of the watershed near Bauneg Beg Mountain and Mount Agamenticus, respectively. Approximately 5,075 acres (9%) of the soils in the GWR watershed are highly erodable and 28,921 acres (52%) are po- tentially highly erodable (Map 2, page 74) (USDA/NRCS and MEGIS, 2005). Highly erodable soils have a potential to erode at a rate far greater than what is considered tolerable soil loss. The potential erodibility of soil is dependant on a combination of factors including rainfall and runoff, susceptibility of the soil to erosion, and slope
7 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 length and steepness (USDA/NRCS and MEGIS, 2005). A highly erodable soil has a higher potential to negatively effect water quality (PBYM, 2006).
2.4 Water Resources There are over 192 miles of rivers and streams in the Watershed. The Great Works River has one major tributary, the Neoutaquet River. Other significant bodies of water include over 30 lakes and ponds, including 10 great ponds which collectively drain approximately 68,000 acres. Table 2.4.1 (below) contains information on the physical characteristics and trophic status of these water bodies. A great pond is one which is 10 acres or more if naturally occurring and 30 acres of more if impounded (Field, 1994). All of the great ponds in watershed, aside from Old Fishing Pond, are currently enrolled in the Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program, which assess them for clarity (algal blooms) and trends in water quality. Recreational uses vary from pond to pond. Although none of the ponds experience a high degree of motorized uses, Bauneg Beg Pond, Knight’s Pond, and Leigh’s Mill Pond in particular experience a high degree of recreational use. Recreational uses on both Bauneg Beg and Leigh’s Mill Ponds have created shoreline erosion issues (Town of South Berwick, 2004). Ac- cording to Maine DEP, none of these ponds is very tolerant of extensive development, such as building or road construction which might increase phosphorous levels and reduce overall water quality (Town of South Berwick, 2004). As a tributary of the Salmon Falls River, the Great Works River has an influence on Table 2.4.1: Great Ponds in the GWR Watershed
Surface Max. Mean Drainage Trophic Pond Name Town Area Depth Depth Area Status (acres) (ft) (ft) (sq. mi.)
Cox’s Pond S. Berwick 20 16 10 .89 Eutrophic Leigh’s Mill Pond S. Berwick 39.5 23 10 84* Eutrophic Warren Pond S. Berwick 25 32 16 .42 Mesotrophic Knight’s Pond S. Berwick 49.4 18 9 .39 Eutrophic Beaver Dam Pond Berwick 19 5 2 2.01 Mesotrophic Little Ell Pond Wells 34 51 15 .75 Eutrophic
Bauneg Beg Lake** N. Berwick 179 29 9 17.7 Eutrophic
Sand Pond Sanford 30 N/A N/A .34 Mesotrophic Curtis Pond Sanford 12 N/A N/A .07 Mesotrophic Old Fishing Pond Sanford 17 N/A N/A .13 N/A *Leigh’s Mill Pond is an impoundment of the Great Works River and shares its watershed. **Bauneg Beg Lake is on the Maine DEP NPS Priority List. 8 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 downstream estuarine resources. The Salmon Falls River is on the Maine DEP 303d list of impaired waters due to biological and sediment oxygen demand, bacteria, and both point- and non-point source pollution. In the upper Salmon Falls Estuary, oyster reefs, consisting of eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica), ribbed mussels (Geukensia demissa), and blue mussels (Mytilus edulis), were very productive and were commer- cially harvested until 1995, when bacterial diseases caused a catastrophic die-off (Mitnik, 1999). In 1999, the Salmon Falls River Study performed by Maine DEP found 7 miles of the River as it flowed through South Berwick were in non-compliance with water quality standards. Point sources, including waste water treatment facilities, com- bined with water draw downs for drinking water and irrigation significantly impact water quality (Town of South Berwick, 2004). Although 90% of the inputs to the Salmon Falls River are from point-sources, the Great Works River is the most significant non-point source input to the Salmon Falls River system due to its higher flow and slightly ele- vated TP concentration. Inputs from the Great Works River account for more than one-half of the entire NPS loading to the Salmon Falls River system (Mitnik, 1999). The Salmon Falls River is the primary water source for the town of Berwick. Within the GWR watershed, residents of South Berwick and Wells primarily obtain water from private wells. Additionally, the town of North Berwick extracts water from two wells owned by the North Berwick water district between Borrel Rd. and Morrells Mill Rd . There are over 10,400 acres of sand and gravel aquifers in the Great Works River wa- tershed (Map 3, page 75). Of these, approximately 9,200 acres are Type 1 aquifers and the remaining 1,200 acres are Type 2. With a properly installed well, yields of 10- 50 gallons-per-minute are expected from Type 1 aquifers, and greater than 50 gallons- per-minute are expected from Type 2 aquifers.
2.5 Land Resources There are approximately 10,609 acres of protected land within the Great Works River watershed (Map 4, page 76). Of this land- 6,186 acres (58%) are in tree growth, 123 acres (1%) are owned by local water districts, and 673 acres (6%) are in farmland. An additional 1,008 acres (10%), including land on Bauneg Beg Mountain, are under non-profit ownership. The remaining 2,619 acres (25%) of protected lands in the GWR watershed are state and town land, the majority of which is in the Mount Agamenticus area in York and South Berwick. According to the Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP), the Mt. Agamenticus re- gion is an area of ecological significance which includes rugged terrain, lakes and ponds, and wetland complexes. These upland and wetland complexes are ecologically
9 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 significant because they contain animal and plant assemblages that are in their north- ern range limits, including at least three animal and 20 plant species. Mount Agamen- ticus is open to the public, with a summit road and marked trails open to hikers, eques- trians, bicyclists and ATV users. Additional MANP areas of ecological significance in the Great Works River water- shed include the Beaver Dam Heath area in Berwick and North Berwick, the Bauneg Beg Mountain area in North Berwick and Sanford, and the Sanford Ponds area in San- ford (Map 5, page 77). The Sanford Ponds area consists of a series of ponds and swamps located on a glacial meltwater formation of kame terraces and eskers. The area includes one of Maine’s largest Atlantic white cedar swamps, as well as Leather- leaf boggy fens, Pitch Pine-Scrub oak barrens, a Pipewort-water Lobelia aquatic bed, and several vernal pools. Combined, the Sanford Ponds, Beaver Dam Heath, Bauneg Beg Mountain, and Mt. Agamenticus natural areas support over 23 species of rare plants and 13 species of rare animals, including the Spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) and the Blandings turtle (Emydoidea blandingii). Spotted turtle and Blandings turtle are currently on Maine’s endangered species list. For more details on rare species in the GWR watershed, see Appendix B, page 48 .
2.6. Fish Assemblage The Great Works River has been surveyed by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife since 1958 (Maine DIFW, 2005). Electrofishing results from 1958 to 2001 reveal seven primary species of fish in the Great Works River, including: 5 native indigenous fishes: (American eel (Anguilla rostrata), Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), White sucker (Catostomus commersoni), Chain pickerel (Esox niger), and Pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) and 2 annually stocked species (Brown trout (Salmo trutta) and Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (Maine DIFW, 2005). Four ponds in the watershed, Warren Pond, Leigh's Mill Pond, Knight Pond, and Little Pond, are also stocked annually with Brook trout , Brown trout, and/or Rainbow trout.
Pumpkinseed Brown trout
Chain pickerel Brook trout 10 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 In 1993 and 1996, Maine DIFW also conducted freshwater mussel surveys on the Great Works River as part of a statewide survey to determine the status, abundance, and distribution of the State’s freshwater mussels. Two species were found to be pre- sent: Triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulate) and Eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata). The Triangle floater is listed as a species of special concern in Maine and is an impor- tant indicator of river health (Nedeau et al. 2000). This species is vulnerable to stresses such as human land use impacts, and could easily become threatened or en- dangered in the future (Maine DIFW, 2004). The Triangle floater and other freshwater mussel species are particularly affected by impoundments—”studies have documented drastic declines in diverse mussel communities following the construction of dams” (Nedeau et al., 2000).
2.7 Land Usage Of the 55,526 acres in the Great Works River watershed, the greatest number of acres are located in the towns of North and South Berwick:
18,908 acres in North Berwick (34%) 15,149 acres in South Berwick (27%) 7,871 acres in Sanford (14%) 6,760 acres in Wells (12%) 4,935 acres in Berwick (9%) 1,902 acres in York (3%)
Land cover in the GWR watershed is dominated by upland forest, with smaller ar- eas of grassland, cultivated land, wetlands, gravel pits, and scrub-shrub scattered throughout the watershed (Figure 2.7.1 – below, Map 6-page 78). Wetlands are the second-largest land-cover class, accounting for over 18% of the watershed land area.
Forested 54.0% Scrub-Shrub (30,006 ac) 6.5% (3,620 ac) Gra ssla nd 11.5% (6,378 ac) Wetland 18.9% (10,485 ac) Cultivated Land 0.2% Bare Land/Gravel (93 ac) Pits Developed Land Water 0.2% 7.5% 1.2% (128 ac) (4,175 ac) (651 ac)
Figure 2.7.1 Land Use in the Great Works River Watershed (GIS data from Banner, 2002). 11 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 Developed land covers approximately 7.5% (4,175 acres) of the GWR watershed and includes three population centers located in Sanford, North Berwick, and South Berwick. The developed land estimate is primarily derived from impervious surface area, and may not include developed land on private, unpaved roads. As such, this number may underestimate actual developed land area in the watershed (Banner, 2002). Berwick, North Berwick, and South Berwick experienced population growth rates in the 1990s of 6%, 13% and 14%, respectively. This compares with 13.5% for York County, the highest county growth rate in the state, and 3.8% for Maine as a whole. Wells and York experienced the highest growth rates of 21% and 31%, respec- tively. Sanford experienced the lowest growth rates in the 1990s, at 2%. Residen- tial housing starts in Wells for the same period reached 49% - the highest in Maine. (SMRPC, 2004) Over half the towns in the watershed, including North Berwick, South Berwick, Wells, and York, currently have residential growth caps in place. According to the Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission, the maximum allowable number of new units per year in North Berwick, South Berwick, Wells, and York, are 33, 40, 132, and 84, respectively (SMRPC, 2005). Most development in the watershed has been confined to single house lots or small developments. However, strip mall and big box developments have sprung up in areas such as Rt. 109 in South Sanford. In recent years, several large-scale development proposals have been defeated, including a casino proposal in 2003 and a liquefied natural gas facility in Wells (SMRPC, 2004).
2.8. Water Usage: Impoundments There are eight impoundments (dams) within the watershed (Map 7, page 79). Five dams, Bauneg Beg Pond Dam, Staples Dam, Douthy Falls Dam, Great Works Dam, and Leighs Mill Dam, are located on the main stem of the Great Works River (USACE & MEDEP 2003). The remaining three dams, Hussey Plow Company Dam, Cider Mill Dam, and Chamslin Mill Dam are located on tributaries of the Great Works River. Table 2.7.1 (next page) lists the locations, uses, and downstream hazard potential of these impoundments. The hydraulic height, defined as the vertical difference between the Douthy Falls Dam, North Berwick
12 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 maximum designed water level and the lowest point in the original streambed, is also listed for each. Hazard potential classifications were assigned by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Maine uses these classifications to regulate dams for safety purposes. Dams with "High" hazard potential are those which would likely cause loss of life and significant property loss if they failed. "Significant" hazard dams would likely cause damage to property if failure occurred, loss of life is uncertain. "Low" hazard dams might cause minor damage to isolated uninhabited facilities, and loss of life is not expected under failure conditions (MEMA).
Table 2.7.1: Impoundments in the Great Works River Watershed (USACE and MEDEP, 2003). Downstream Impoundment Name Hydraulic Waterbody Town Hazard Use (Alternate Name) Height (ft) Potential North Bauneg Beg Pond Dam Great Works River Significant 10 Recreation Berwick Beaver Dam Pond Dam Beaver Dam Berwick Low 9 Recreation (Chamslin Mill Dam) Brook North Cider Mill Dam Frost Brook Low 12 Recreation Berwick Douthy Falls Dam North Great Works River Significant 10 Other (North Berwick Dam) Berwick Great Works Dam Great Works River South Hydro- (Brattle Street Dam, Rocky (Leighs Mill Pond Low 10 Berwick power Gorge Project) inlet) Hussey Plow Company Dam North Neoutaquet River Significant 14 Other (Neoutaquet Dam) Berwick Staples Dam North Great Works River Significant 14 Water Supply (Card Mill Dam) Berwick Great Works River Leighs Mill Dam South Hydro- (Leighs Mill Pond n/a 30 (Vine Street Dam) Berwick power outlet)
There are two dams in the watershed used for hydropower. The Great Works Dam, owned by the Rocky Gorge Group, is located near the inlet of Leighs Mill Pond. The Leighs Mill Dam, located at the outlet of the same pond, is owned by Ridgewood Maine Hydro Partners. Both dams have an installed capacity of 500 kw (Murch, Per- sonal communication). The Great Works Dam project, also known as the Rocky Gorge Project, has been approved and permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis- sion while the Leighs Mill Dam project is exempt from FERC jurisdiction (MEDEP, 2006b). Dams have the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to the ecology of riv- ers and streams by blocking migration of fish to upriver spawning habitat; warming wa- ter temperatures in impoundments, and accumulating sediment, which degrades water quality and often buries high quality fisheries habitat. Studies on the Salmon Falls
13 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 River demonstrate that impoundments have been a major cause of water quality deg- radation on the River (Mitnik, 1999). Impoundments (small hydro power dams) along the river reduce flow rates causing dramatic oxygen depletion in the impoundments be- hind these dams during summer months. Elevated chlorophyll levels have also been noted in impoundments (Mitnik, 1999).
3. Water Quality Assessment
3.1 Classification The Great Works River (GWR) is listed on the by the State as a “Nonpoint Source Priority Watershed” due to having “significant value from a regional or statewide per- spective, and water quality that is either impaired, or threatened to some degree due to nonpoint source pollution from land use activities in the watershed”. The GWR is listed specifically for non-attainment of dissolved oxygen (DO) (low levels). The GWR is designated Class B by the Maine Department of Environmental Protec- tion (MRSA Title 38, Chapter 3): Class B waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable for drinking (after treatment) for fishing and recreation; industrial process and cooling water supply; hydroelectric power generation; and as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. In addition, the habitat needs to be characterized as unimpaired (Title 38, Chapter 3). Dissolved oxygen content should be greater than or equal to 7 ppm (or 75% saturation) except for the period critical to spawning of indigenous fish species (Oct 1st – May 14th) when the 7 day mean dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 9.5 ppm. Between May 15th- Sept 30th the number of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria of human origin may not exceed a geometric mean of 64/100 milliliters or an instantaneous level of 236/100 milliliters (2005 standards). Permitted discharges shall not cause adverse impact to aquatic life.
GWR Water Quality Monitoring
3.2 Summary of Available Data Volunteer Efforts 2002-2005 Volunteers of the GWR Watershed 300 Coalition (GWRWC) have collected 250 MDEP Quality Assured water tempera- ture and DO in the main stem of the 200
GWR and some of its tributaries since of Hours # 150 2002. This volunteer effort has more than doubled over the four year period, 100 2002 2003 2004 2005 with more than 270 volunteer hours re- Year ported each year in 2004 and 2005 (Figure 3.2.1). Figure 3.2.1. Volunteer sampling efforts have more than doubled since sampling began in 2002.
14 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
Temperature In the Great Works River the average water temperature was 18.2°C (64.8°F) for the 2002 water monitoring season, 17.6°C (63.7°F) in 2003, and 17.7°C (63.8°F) for the 2004 and 2005 monitoring seasons. The maximum temperature for the survivability of Brook Trout is 24°C (75.2°F) and they will not grow if the temperature rises above 19°C (66.2°F) (Hach Chemical). The temperature must be below 9°C (48.2°F) for spawning and below 13°C (55.4°F) for the embryos to survive. These readings indicate that the main stem of the river should support Brook Trout as a species. Average Temperature However, since water temperature is Main Stem GWR 2002-2005 highly dependent on the depth, volume 18.5 and amount of shade, any fish species could be at risk due to the variable flow 18 of the Great Works River. Since the depth and volume of the river rely primarily on weather events (spring run- 17.5 off and rainfall), it becomes even more Temperature (°C) important to maintain the shade cover 17 on the river. It is strongly recommended 2002 2003 2004 2005 that current efforts of the GWRWC to Year of Record protect buffer zones on the banks of the Figure 3.2.2. Water temperature in the GWR was slightly river and tributaries be maintained and/ higher in 2002 due to low levels of precipitation, but has remained consistent ever since. or improved to help in the stability of the water temperature and the resulting survivability of the aquatic species.
Dissolved Oxygen Overall, the average dissolved oxygen (DO) levels for the main stem of the GWR ranged from 79.1% to 79.5% over the 4 year period - supporting the State of Maine’s Class B designation. However, low DO levels at several sampling locations are cause for concern. Once such concern is the sampling site at Channel Lane. This monitoring site is at the northern end of Bauneg Beg Lake where the northern flowage of the main stem of the GWR widens out and slows down to become Bauneg Beg Lake. This site has had consistently low average DO levels (64 - 68%), and has had levels as low as 29%. The field volunteer monitor reported the increasing growth of algae at this site as the season progressed.
15 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
DO Violations in the Main Stem GWR 2002-2005 180 # of Samples 160 166 # of Violations 140 148 120 131 130 100
80
60 63 40 52 # of Samples/Violations of # 20 24 27 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Figure 3.2.3. DO violations have decreased over the period of sampling, but may be attributed to differences in precipitation.
It is important to note that 4 of the 5 sites north of Bauneg Beg that stayed the same or increased in the number of dissolved oxygen violations in the 2003-4 seasons. But in general, DO violations have declined in the main stem of the GWR (Figure 3.2.3). Yet, violations occurred in 29% of all samples over the four year period (166 violations in 575 samples). The high number of violations in 2002 is thought to be due in part to the low precipitation, while the lower number of violations in 2003-2005 may be partly attributed to years with high precipitation and significant rainfall DO Violations in Tribs of GWR 2002-2005 events that helped improve DO levels.
60 A break down of DO violations in the 9 tributaries of the GWR revealed that 50 on average, between 50 and 83% of 40 53% samples were in violation of the Class 30 72% 50% B standard (> 75% saturation) (Figure 20 83% 3.2.4). In 2002, Lover’s Brook was the # Sites/Violations # 10 only tributary sampled. As a result of
0 low DO saturation at all three sites 2002 2003 2004 2005 (LB05, LB15, LB50), and the fact that it # Samples # Violations x% = violations as % of total samples was the only site sampled, the percent Figure 3.2.4. The percent of tributary samples in violation of violations was higher in 2002 than in of Class B requirements for DO was greater than 50% in any other year of sampling. all years.
16 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
A closer look at DO averages at individual sites (Figure 3.2.5, below) shows that only NR50 and BB02 met water quality standards in all years. In 2003, 100% of samples from Chick’s Brook were below 75% saturation. In 2003, 2004 and 2005 West Brook had the lowest average DO concentrations (43-49%), as well as the lowest values among individual samples (23-38%). These low values may be a natural function of the marsh at the head of the brook. Goodall Brook also had consistently low DO values in 2004 and 2005, with samples below 75% in 10 of 11 samples taken over the two year period. This is not surprising considering the urbanized area surrounding the stream.
Phosphorus In 2003 total phosphorus (TP) was added to the water quality parameters for the main stem of the GWR. Results of the TP analysis indicate that low level-phosphorus levels improved considerably in the main stem of the GWR between 2003 and 2004. In 2003 the average phosphorus level was 49 ppb (parts per billion), while the average in 2004 was 18 ppb (Figure 3.2.6). In 2005, the average TP increased to 25 ppb. While there are currently no state guidelines for low-level phosphorus, rivers in southern Maine can have TP levels of near 30 ppb. This means that 8 out of 10 sites exceeded 30 ppb for TP in 2003, while only 1 out of 9 sites exceeded 30 ppb in 2004 and 2005. In 2004 Goodall Brook was added to the list of sampling sites for TP based on best professional judgment that a significant amount of NPS pollution was being delivered
Average Tributary DO Concentrations 2002-2005 100 90 80 In compliance Class B > 75% 70 60 50 40 30 (% Saturation) 20 Dissolved Oxygen 10 0 Lovers NR50 Wes t Chick's BB02 AB20 Frost BD60 Goodall Brook Brook Brook Brook Brook
2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 3.2.5. Average DO concentrations in the tributaries of the GWR were consistently below 75% saturation at all but two sites over the four year sampling period. 17 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 to this tributary due to intense Total Phosphorus Exceedance development in the watershed. Mainstem GWR 2003-2005 50 As expected TP was elevated in 45 Avg.Total P Goodall Brook in both years, 40 # Samples > 30 ppb # Sites > 30 ppb with low level phosphorus levels 35 30 as high as 110 ppb. While there 25 is some cause for concern at a 20
Total P (ppb) P Total 15 few other sites along the main # Sites/Samples stem, the results have not been 10 5 consistent at the same site over 0 an entire sampling season. In 2003 2004 2005 one case high levels of TP were Figure 3.2.6. Average low-level phosphorus decreased significantly attributed to release of the dam between 2003 and 2004, and then increased again slightly in 2005. at Leigh’s Mills Pond in 2004.
E. coli E. coli bacteria is an indication of the presence of fecal contamination in the watershed. The sources of this contamination could be from point sources such as wastewater treatment plants discharges and/or stormwater overflows. The bacteria could also originate from polluted runoff sources such as pet waste, livestock contamination and/or failing septic systems, or from nonhuman-associated sources such as native wildlife. By itself E. coli is generally not a threat to human health but can be associated with disease- causing organisms (GWRWC, E. coli Violations (2005 standards) 2004). In 2003 E. coli was added Mainstem GWR 2003-2005 to the list of water quality 30 2004 monitoring parameters for the 25 main stem of the GWR. Revised 20 2005 2005 standards for E. coli state that waters may not exceed a 15 geometric mean of 64 colonies per 10
100 mL, or an instantaneous level Violations of No. 2003 5 of 236 colonies per 100 mL. Results of the E. coli analysis for 0 the main stem of the GWR Instantaneous (> 236) Geometric Mean (> 64) indicate that the number of Figure 3.2.7. E. coli has increased in the main stem of the GWR since sampling began in 2003.
18 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 instantaneous violations increased dramatically between 2003 and 2004 (from 4 to 25 violations), and then decreased slightly in 2005 (19 violations). The overall trend in the geometric mean E. coli counts indicates that E. coli levels have increased every year Mean E. coli Counts Goodall Brook 2003-2004 since sampling began (Figure 2.3.7). Heavy rainfall that occurred on multiple 200 2005 occasions through the sampling seasons of
150 2004 and 2005 likely washed polluted runoff with potential sources of E.coli into 2004 100 the river, thereby effecting the high number of instantaneous violations (2003 was
50 reported to be an unusually dry year). In 2004 the Hooper Sands Rd. site in South Geometric Mean (Colonies/ 100) (Colonies/ Mean Geometric 0 Berwick (GW30) exhibited the highest mean E.Geometric coli Limit
19 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
3.3 Summary of Bauneg Beg Lake Water Quality (Also See Appendix F- Page 84) Compared to most lakes monitored in Maine, Bauneg Beg Lake has below average water quality and clarity. In 2006, water quality for Bauneg Beg Lake showed an overall decline, compared to the long-term average for the lake. Despite this slight decline in water clarity, the 2006 concentration of algae in the lake (measured from chlorophyll-a levels) was still near the long-term average for the lake. The concentration of total phosphorus in the water was higher than the historical average, and transparency showed a slight decline over historical measurements. Due to the combination of a slight decline in water clarity and an increase in TP levels, it is important to continue to closely monitor the water quality in Bauneg Beg Lake. Dissolved oxygen loss in the “deep hole” of the lake was similar to historical records, but was more severe in 2006 than the historical average. Severe oxygen depletion was recorded in the deepest area of the lake during the late summer. The consistent loss of dissolved oxygen in the deepest area of Bauneg Beg Lake during late summer suggests that fish habitat may be threatened during this part of the year and that lake water quality should continue to be monitored closely. One possible result of oxygen depletion is the potential release of biologically-available phosphorus from bottom sediments. For this reason, it is important to minimize any additional sediment inputs to Bauneg Beg Lake.
4. Water Quality Goals and Objectives 4.1 Goals While the primary goal of the watershed management plan is to advance locally supported water quality goals, objectives and action strategies for protecting the Great Works River and its tributaries, the specific water quality goals within the plan are focused on ensuring that the Great Works River meets minimum Class B standards and is useful and healthy for drinking, recreation, fish, birds, and other wildlife now and in the future.
4.2 Objectives Objectives of the watershed management plan are focused on improving water quality in the Great Works River watershed for the benefit of fish, birds, and other wildlife, as well as local residents, landowners, and visitors.
Water Quality • Maintain and improve water quality by eliminating or reducing non-point sources of pollution as identified in the Bauneg Beg Lake, Great Works River, and Northern
20 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
Great Works River Survey Reports. Focus considerable effort to areas north of Bauneg Beg Pond including Goodall Brook.
• Work to prevent future non-point sources of pollution.
Habitat • Coordinate conservation efforts to protect valuable habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife in the Great Works River watershed and the Salmon Falls River estuary.
Recreation • Assist landowners in providing recreational opportunities that are compatible with high water quality and healthy wildlife habitat.
• Ensure that the Great Works River continues to provide recreational opportunities and aesthetic value to local residents and visitors.
Stewardship/Public Involvement • Inspire people to become active stewards of land and water resources in the Great Works River watershed by increasing and maintaining public involvement in
management plan goals, objectives, and implementation.
• Raise awareness in the municipalities of South Berwick, North Berwick, Berwick, York, Wells, Sanford, and surrounding areas of the connection between land use, water quality, and the impacts of polluted runoff.
• Form collaborative relationships with local municipal officials and landowners.
Monitoring and Evaluation • Assess watershed conditions over time to ensure watershed management goals are being met.
• Continue water quality monitoring of new and existing sites.
• Evaluate repaired NPS sites, and maintain installed BMPs.
5. NPS Inventory and Assessment
5.1 Methods Land uses in the shoreland zone, in highly developed areas, and in areas where runoff from roads meets local tributaries generally have the greatest impact on water
21 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 quality, compared to activities more distant from the watercourse because they act as major transport areas for sediments and other pollutants. To assess the degree of NPS pollution across the 84 square mile GWR watershed, the NPS inventory and assessment was divided into three major watershed areas (Map 1, page 73), which were then further divided into twenty-seven minor survey segments. The goal of these surveys was to identify potential sources of bacteria and other contaminants (e.g. runoff, point sources, erosion, sediments, or toxics to surface waters). Potential NPS pollution sites were selected to provide an initial point of investigation. The 1999 Bauneg Beg Survey focused on residential lots around Bauneg Beg Lake. Private roads and town roads for potential NPS sites. The two subsequent surveys, conducted in 2000 (YCSWCD, 2002) and 2004 (YCSWCD, 2005), focused on public and private road crossings within the Great Works River and several of its tributaries. Combined, these three surveys covered the shoreline and adjacent parcels around Bauneg Beg Lake, road and stream crossings, parking lots, fields, stream banks, boat landings, and footpaths throughout the watershed. Before forming teams and going out into the field, volunteers received training on field survey techniques. This included identifying erosion sites and various sources of polluted runoff, documenting problems, and making preliminary recommendations for remediation. To further ensure accurate data collection, technical staff members served as leaders for each team. In all, more than 50 trained volunteers helped conduct the surveys; record suspected NPS sites, write descriptions, draw maps, collect GPS points, and take photographs. Volunteers located and inventoried 516 hard-to-find and often overlooked sources of NPS pollution in the watershed at 275 different sites. Information gathered in these three surveys were prioritized, and survey results were made available for community discussions (including the well-publicized 2005 Community Forum). Community members were able to discuss the number and locations of NPS sites, the appropriate solutions for problems identified, and guidelines for land use practices that will prevent future problems. These actions and guidelines provide the framework for this GWR Watershed Management Plan.
5.2. Watershed Survey Segment Map More than 50 volunteers have received training on Please see Great Works River Watershed survey techniques in the field. Survey Segment Map, Map 1, page 73. 22 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
NPS Observations by Land Use Type 5.3 Nonpoint Source Survey Roads/Parking Lots Observations Please see Nonpoint Survey Residential Agriculture Observations, Appendix D, 46% 30% pages 51-72. Beach Trail/Path Commercial 6. Threats to Water Quality Easement 4% 6.1 Survey Results 4% Other 8% Combined, public and private roads, driveways and parking 4% 2% 2% lots account for 46% of the total Figure 6.1.1. The greatest number of NPS observations in the GWR land uses where NPS pollution Watershed are located at or near roads, parking lots and driveways. problems occur in the GWR Watershed (See figure 6.1.1). Residential areas ranked second to roads at 30% of the total. The remaining land uses include agriculture (4%), and beach related sources (4%).
Summary of NPS Observations GWR Watershed Surveys '99, '00, '04 220
Erosion 200 Shoulder Er o s io n Othe r 180 28% 11%
160
140 Surface Shoreline Er o s io n Er o s io n Direct 120 47% 8% Flow Bank 100 Er o s io n 6% 80 Indadequate No. of Occurences Buffer Bare 60 Soil Culvert 40 Construction Other Ditch Trash/debris 20 Road Shaping
0
Figure 6.1.2. Erosion, nps direct flow, and bare soil were among the top three most fre- quently observed types of non-point source pollution across the GWR watershed. 23 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
Land uses that make up less than 3% of the total (in decreasing order) include; trails/paths, commercial, easements, boat access, recreation, cemetery, logging, parking lot, and dump site. Of the 516 observations documented in the three GWR watershed surveys, 196, or 38% of NPS observations were attributed to problems associated with erosion (Figure 6.1.2). Surface erosion, road shoulder erosion, shoreline erosion, and bank erosion were the major culprits (see inset). Direct stormwater flow was the second most frequently occurring NPS observation, with (108 observations - 21%). Other documented NPS problems that were frequently observed include; bare soil (9%), lack of adequate buffers (7%), poorly functioning culverts (7%), poorly designed road ditches (4%), shoreline erosion (3%), and construction activities (3%) including ineffective silt fences. Poorly shaped roads (2%), and trash and debris Lack of adequate buffers on road shoulders causes surface erosion and (2%) were also noted. The remainder of direct flow to waterways. observations making up 1% or less of the total observations were grouped into the ‘Other’ category (7%). These include (in decreasing order): excess road sand, livestock in/near streams, stream re-alignment, algae in stream, overland flow-pavement, discharge from a pipe or storm-drain, septic back-up, roof runoff, lawn, snow-plowing, horse paddock, and gravel operation.
6.2. Priority Ranking of NPS Sites Suspected sources of pollution were ranked, based upon three criteria: 1) the expected impact they would have on surface water quality; 2) the technical skill level to install the BMPs; and 3) how much the BMPs would cost. Volunteers and technical staff determined the degree of impact based on slope, soil type, amount of eroded soil, proximity to the lake, stream, ditch or buffer, and size of the buffer. Sites with a high impact rating typically had direct flow to a tributary or lake, and greater than 100 square feet of disturbance. Impacts were rated medium when sediment was transported off site to a buffer or wetland, or when the total square feet of impact was greater than 100. Low impact was recorded with sites that had limited off-site transport even if the disturbed area was large. Technical skill level was recorded as high when the site required an engineered design, medium if a technical person could visit the site and make recommendations,
24 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
Priority Ranking Summary for NPS Sites in the GWR Watershed No. of Sites Not Rated Low 12% 8% High 65 High 24% Medium 155
Low 23
Not Rated 32 ______Medium Total Sites 275 56%
Figure 6.2.1. Almost a quarter of documented NPS sites in the GWR watershed ranked as high priority, while the bulk of the observations ranked as medium priority. and low if the property owner could accomplish the improvement with or without reference materials. Costs to fix the problem were based on estimates, where high costs were greater than $2,500, medium costs were between $500 and $2,500, and low costs were $500 or less. A problem site with a high impact rating, low technical skill level and low cost scored as a high priority, since fixing it would result in the greatest improvement for the least amount of money. Of the 275 documented NPS sites, 65 sites were identified as high priority (Figure 6.2.1, above). These results are positive in that the high priority sites make up
Re-vegetating eroded soils along stream banks is Surface erosion and overland flow caused by a low cost solution with a big impact. A site like roof runoff and poorly established vegetation this would rank as a high priority. involves low costs and skill to fix, and would be a high or medium priority. 25 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 less than a quarter of the observations and could be remediated within a relatively short time. Additionally, 34 of the 65 high priority sites were rated as high impact, with a majority of these sites located near Bauneg Beg Lake and in sections of the northern GWR watershed (Map 8, page 80). A good management strategy should include attacking sites that are both high impact and high priority first. The medium priority sites, making up the bulk of the NPS sites (56%), will require more time and effort to remedy. Sites with lower scores are also worthy of consideration but should receive attention after the higher priority sites are addressed. Sites that were not rated should be revisited and given a priority ranking.
6.3 Soil Erosion Soil that is transported to streams, lakes and rivers by the process of erosion is referred to as sediment. Sediment is easily transported after a rain event in roadside ditches, down storm drains, and into streams. Once in the stream or river, sediment can be harmful to aquatic organisms by burying them, smothering fish eggs, and even clogging fish gills (MIDEQ, 1998). Eroded sediment carries phosphorus, a naturally occurring nutrient in Maine soils, which is also the key ingredient that stimulates algal growth in our waterbodies (MDEP and MACD, 2006). Other pollutants such as oil and grease from roads and parking lots; pesticides and herbicides from lawns, gardens and playing fields; and bacteria and viruses from improperly handled animal waste or malfunctioning septic systems attach themselves to soil particles and are delivered to streams, lakes and rivers via erosion. In the GWR watershed soil erosion was the most frequently documented type of erosion and was found at 92 sites across all different land uses. Severe soil erosion occurred most frequently at or near unpaved and poorly maintained private roads, on trails and paths, and near structures such as bridges and culverts. Surface erosion was also seen at different levels of severity on residential lots, near grazing areas, and on several right of ways. This type of erosion is detrimental because it often occurs in conjunction with direct flow to a stream, wetland, lake, or river. Road Shoulder erosion was documented in 29% of erosion cases, and occurred on private roads, town roads, and state roads. Severe shoulder erosion was most often associated Example of erosion on a road shoulder next to with state and town roads, while moderate a catch basin. 26 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 shoulder erosion was documented more often on private roads and driveways. Poor road shaping, and lack of adequate buffers along roadways can lead to direct runoff to waterbodies, and infilling of ditches and culverts. Shoreline erosion was documented at 19 different lake and stream sites throughout the watershed, with the majority of sites located on residential lots. Beaches, private roads, town roads, state roads, and trails/paths also contribute to shoreline erosion due to inadequate Direct flow of eroded soils to a tributary of the GWR as a result of bare soil and an inade- buffers and steep, unstable banks. During rain events, runoff erodes soil and attached nutrients into nearby waterbodies. Unlike other types of NPS pollution that occur higher in the watershed, shoreline erosion has an immediate affect on water quality.
6.4 Direct Flow Direct flow is overland flow that contributes to increased surface runoff to nearby water bodies. This type of flow is enhanced by, and associated with other NPS problems such as soil erosion, inadequate buffers, and poorly designed or failing culverts and ditches. As rainwater or melting snow flows across paved or unpaved surfaces it can carry a variety of pollutant types into nearby streams. Direct flow was identified in 23% of nonpoint source observations made throughout the GWR watershed.
6.5 Bare Soil Without a protective cover of vegetation or mulch bare soil is vulnerable to raindrop impact and soil loss by wind and water. Bare soil is often the culprit of many of the many different types of erosion in section 6.4. While soil erosion is most prevalent on steep slopes, it also occurs on level ground. Rain that falls on impervious surfaces such as roads, driveways
Example of an inadequate buffer near a residen- and rooftops can create concentrated runoff tial property along a tributary of the GWR. with more potential to erode bare soil leading to
27 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 overland flow. In the GWR watershed, 9% of NPS problems were associated with bare soil. In the 1999 Bauneg Beg survey bare soil was mainly associated with residential properties near the lake shore. Many property owners lacked vegetation between the house and the lake, while others raked all vegetation and mulch to bare soil. Bare soil in the shoreland zone is especially dangerous to water quality because it provides a direct path for delivery of sediment. In the 2000 and 2004 surveys, bare soil was more often associated with town and private roads. The combination of vehicle traffic and raindrop impact dislodges soil particles making them more available for delivery to local ditches and tributaries. Bare soil was heavily documented at stream crossings, and at right of ways/easements. There was one documented case of bare soil and erosion along an ATV trail at a Rt. 4 stream crossing.
6.6 Inadequate Buffers Vegetation in the shoreland zone (area adjacent to streams, brooks and lakes) helps absorb fertilizers, sediment-laden runoff and nutrients from developed areas before they enter waterways. Removing vegetation along streams, rivers and lakes may have a number of implications including: direct flow, shoreline and bank erosion, altered stream flow, warming of surface waters-loss of aquatic species and reduced recreational opportunities. Loss of buffers also decreases the amount of habitat available to native species that depend on this vegetation for breeding, and changes the natural scenic beauty of the water course. The network of tree roots along the shoreline (or buffer zone) stabilize the stream banks, holding soil in place. The above ground network of trunks, branches, leaves and needles alters the way precipitation reaches the ground, greatly reducing its erosional impact. The canopy of leaves and needles provides shade to keep water temperature cool and reduce the growth of undesirable algae that can degrade fish spawning and feeding habitats. Cool water is especially important for fish such as the brook trout and brown trout that already inhabit the watershed (WNERR, 2004). Inadequate buffers account for 7% of NPS observations in the watershed, and were commonly observed near town and private roads, driveways, beach access points, residential properties, livestock and horse areas, a cemetery, ATV crossing, and a sewer easement. A 200’ section of the river in North Berwick was documented as having an inadequate buffer due to commercial development. Tributaries or Ponds where inadequate buffers were documented as having negative effects include Adams Brook, Knight’s Brook, Frost Brook, Cedar Mill Pond and Bauneg Beg Lake. Two roads with a number of documented buffer problems include the Twombley Rd. and the Fisher Pond Rd.
28 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
6.7 Culverts Thirty-seven separate NPS observations in the three watershed surveys were related to culverts. Direct flow, soil erosion, ditch erosion, road shoulder erosion and bank erosion were commonly reported at these sites. The culprit in many cases was clogged or unstable culverts (inlets and outlets). Hanging culverts, undersized culverts, and culverts with degrading liners were also frequently recorded. Hydrocarbon-based pollution from road runoff also threatens to occur at these sites, making these sites particularly vulnerable to nonpoint source pollution because of the quantity and quality of runoff delivered to the surface water. Among other issues, hanging culverts in particular also represent a threat to fish habitat. Design recommendations for existing culverts include cleaning out the culvert, enlarging, replacing, lengthening, stabilizing the inlet and outlets and installing plunge pools. Areas needing new culverts require proper design to minimize impact on bank side vegetation, reduce erosion, and allow as-natural-as-possible patterns of water flow.
6.8 Animal Waste Solid waste material from pets, livestock, and wildlife can be a source of fecal coliform contamination of surface waters. There were five (5) instances throughout the watershed where livestock were documented in the stream. These included Adams Brook, Knight’s Brook, the GWR, and two areas near Lebanon Rd and Pond Rd. To reduce impacts from livestock, the animals should be fenced from the stream and a vegetated buffers should be installed. Example of a poorly designed, undersized, hanging culvert. A 100’ section of stream next to a horse paddock near Bauneg Beg Ski Area also has a high potential for contributing contaminated runoff. Planting a buffer of ground cover plants and shrubs would help to decrease bacterial input. Pet waste was documented along the shoreline of Bauneg Beg Lake at five (5) different locations. This type of pollution can be eliminated by simply cleaning up after pets.
29 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
7. Best Management Practices 7.1 NPS Pollution Control Actions Soil erosion is the most common cause of polluted runoff in the GWR watershed, and has been documented in every type of land use - along roadways, shorelines, and on residential properties in both urban and rural areas. In the more urbanized areas of the watershed (e.g. Goodall Brook subwatershed) polluted runoff from large expanses of impervious surfaces can lead to more concentrated stormwater runoff. Conservation practices to mitigate polluted runoff generally focus on addressing two broad concerns: storm water flow control and pollutant load reduction. BMPs will vary depending on whether the developed area under consideration is new or existing. The most effective flow control measures in newly developing areas limit the amount of rainfall that is converted to runoff. In cases where it is not feasible to reduce runoff volumes due to the density of development, BMPs are implemented to reduce pollutant generation and/or facilitate pollutant removal. Best Management Practices, or BMPs, are any structural or non-structural practice to treat, prevent or reduce water pollution. These practices can be as simple as revegetating bare soil and planting shrubs along the water front, to installing sediment detention basins to capture and filter sediments before they enter the water course. Often, a variety of BMPs may be needed to adequately treat NPS pollution. The following list provides examples of many different BMPs that can be applied to NPS problems identified in the three watershed surveys:
Erosion on Roads and Driveways • Add new surface material to stabilize roadways • Install runoff diverters e.g.) broad- based dip, rubber razor, waterbar • Install ditch turnouts or diversion channels to send overland flows to stable areas • Use Detention Basins at ditch turnouts to retain water between runoff events, and remove suspended sediments and adsorbed pollutants. • Remove grader berms • Remove excess winter sand Excess sand left on the road following a cold Maine winter can be a source of NPS pollution . • Reshape/vegetate road shoulder
30 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
• Reshape or crown road to reduce water on surface • Pave dirt roads • Install permeable pavement to allow water infiltration in high traffic areas
Inadequate Vegetated Buffer and Bare Eroding Soil • Establish Buffer to reduce direct flow to waterbody • Extend Buffer to a minimum of 75’ on all streams, and 100’ on all lakes. • Plant Trees and Shrubs and ground covers to stabilize soil and reduce runoff • Seed bare soil with grass to provide temporary or permanent cover • Mulch bare soil with straw, wood fiber or chips etc. over a seeded area to protect the bed from erosion and drying • Use Sod transplants to stabilize erosion prone areas
Poorly Functioning Culverts • Clean out culvert regularly to minimize blockage and backflow • Enlarge, replace, or lengthen culvert to account for type of flow • Install plunge pool to reduce downstream erosion • Stabilize inlet/outlet with rock and vegetation to reduce erosion
Inadequate Ditches • Install new ditches to capture runoff from roads • Armor with stone to stabilize ditch and minimize erosion by runoff water • Stabilize ditches with a grass to allow for concentrated flow without erosion • Reshape ditches to minimize pitch and maximize storage • Install turnout to convey water to reduce flow to waterbody • Install check dams to reduce erosive flows in drainage ditches/allow revegetation
Direct Flow from Roof Runoff • Install a stone-filled dripline trench to capture and infiltrate rainwater • Install a drywell at gutter down spout to capture water and prevent overland flow
Unstable Shoreline/Beach Access • Revegetate or terrace steep eroding slopes • Eliminate raking to bare soil • Establish a defined path for foot traffic • Install steps to reduce erosion on steep foot paths
31 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
• Design winding paths to waterfront instead of straight paths • Minimize path widths (must be less than 6’)
Stormwater Runoff in Urbanized Areas • Use Oil/Grit Separators to remove coarse sediment and oils in stormwater • Install sumps on catch basins to capture solids before they enter the sewer system • Create sediment detention basins to receive, detain and reduce sediments in stormwater from heavily impervious areas • Use flow control devices to release water at non-erosive flow rate • Install infiltration basins to impound water over permeable soils and allow controlled infiltration and removal of fine sediments and adsorbed pollutants
Construction Site Erosion Controls • Put up fences and signs to contain damage caused by heavy equipment • Use Grading plans to minimize erosion • Use filter strips and buffers to prevent runoff, and stabilize erosion prone slopes. • Place soil piles where they will not erode into watercourse • Seed and install effective erosion barriers (temporary BMPs) around spoil piles • Stage projects to minimize area of exposed soil at any one time • Select and protect trees to the maximum extent possible, prior to construction. • Dewater with well points/ cofferdams and pumps to remove ground and surface water from a construction site to reduce scarring This catch basin collects runoff from the surrounding paved area and discharges it and erosion directly to Goodall Brook. • Install Filters of crushed stone, straw or geotextile to remove sediment from stormwater before it exits a construction site
Other • Install watercourse crossings to confine erosional impacts and minimize flow alterations at points of crossing • Practice good fertilizer management techniques to minimize nutrient inputs to the water course
32 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
• Install fencing to keep grazing animals out of streams • Properly dispose of used oil and other hazardous waste material • Regularly inspect septic systems for signs of leaks– pump regularly
8. Regulations 8.1 Current Laws There exist a number of federal and state laws designed to protect the environment. These laws are intended to be incorporated into local town ordinances, providing protection for wildlife habitat, water and air quality, and endangered and threatened species. Major laws pertaining to habitat conservation and local land-use planning include: the Federal Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act, all of which are federally mandated laws. Additional laws mandated by the state of Maine include:
• The Maine Endangered Species Act • the Natural Resources Protection Act • the Coastal Management Policy • the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act • the Subdivision Law • Site Location of Development Law • Wetlands and Waterbodies Protection • Shoreland Zoning Ordinance
Based on the State mandated Shoreland Zoning Act, each of the six watershed towns have developed Resource Protection and Shoreland Overlay Districts. This Act controls land uses and placement of structures within the shoreland zone and helps to minimize the impact of development in riparian areas. Specifically, this Act requires municipalities to establish land use controls for all land areas within 250 feet of ponds and non-forested freshwater wetlands that are 10 acres or larger; rivers with watersheds of at least 25 square miles in drainage area; coastal wetlands and tidal waters; and all land areas within 75 feet of certain streams. Although areas falling under the formal protection of this Act are determined at the municipal level and are enforced by municipal officials, the State has developed suggested guidelines for municipalities to follow. While the Act does not prevent development, it does place conditions on development. Zoning is guided by each Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
33 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
All six towns have also established Watershed/Aquifer Protection and Flood Protection zoning ordinances which provide varying levels of protection.
8.2 Structures Each town requires a standard set back of 75-100 feet for all structures, including parking areas and septic systems. Within Resource Protection Districts, York, Berwick, North Berwick, and Sanford require a 100’ setback from the normal high water mark of ponds (including Bauneg Beg Pond), rivers, tributaries, and the upland edge wetlands. The towns of South Berwick and Wells require a 250’ setback from any waterbody zoned as Resource Protection, and 100’ from tributary streams. In general, the towns also have resource protection Subdistricts with less stringent setbacks. All towns in the watershed require that lot coverage within the shoreland zone shall not exceed 20% of the lot.
8.3 Clearing of Vegetation In areas zoned for Resource Protection, cutting vegetation is prohibited within 100’ of the normal high water mark of great ponds, the Great Works River, and the Salmon Falls River (South Berwick) or within 75’ of tributaries and other waterbodies. Additionally, no cleared openings greater than 250 square feet are allowed in the forest canopy (measured from the outer limits of the tree crown).
8.4 Aquifer Protection North Berwick, South Berwick, Sanford and York use the 200 day travel line to control and regulate uses near aquifers. Aquifer protection areas consist of aquifers, wells, and aquifer recharge areas, including the overlying land, in which leachable materials disposed of into or onto the land can travel to well sites (existing or proposed) within 200 days travel time – an accepted standard for the filtering of viruses and other pollutants. Uses in this zone are restricted or need case by case approval. Generally, within the delineated area, most uses are prohibited/restricted except recreation areas and residential (non-cluster) development. Animal husbandry or agricultural uses that produce animal wastes are not allowed. Structure and septic setbacks vary depending on the town. Wells and North Berwick use a 250 foot setback for structures and 400 foot setback for septic systems. Wells and North Berwick specify additional restrictions for aquifer recharge areas that lie outside the 200-day contaminant travel zone (more than 200 days but less than 2500 days travel time).
34 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
8.5 Flood Protection An important element in making flood insurance available to home and business owners is a community's willingness to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances, particularly with respect to new development. If municipalities are not in compliance with updates to their floodplain ordinances, structures within the municipality may be subject to higher federal insurance premiums. Lack of compliance may also affect the level of disaster relief assistance granted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during flooding events. The federal government also uses municipal floodplain ordinances as a criterion when assessing disaster assistance needs. The Maine State Planning Office’s Floodplain Management Program has drafted model municipal floodplain ordinances to be used by towns. This type of ordinance identifies areas within a city or town that are prone to flood hazards as identified by FEMA flood maps, and establishes a Flood Hazard Development Permit system for construction or development in identified flood areas. The permit system ensures that development standards in flood zones are adequate to protect against substantial losses of structures and requires a site plan of the proposed development (including services such as sewer and water, base flood elevations, and lowest floor of the structure). Currently, all of the towns in the GWR watershed have updated Floodplain Management ordinances. In general, all new buildings and structures including basements must be elevated at least one foot (2’ in York) above the elevation of the one-hundred-year-flood. FEMA creates Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM’s) to be used for assessing the risk associated with insurance policies in coastal flood zones. These maps identify Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA’s) which delineate the 100-year floodplain, indicating a one percent chance that property within the area will flood in any given year (Map 9, page 80). Each town in the GWR watershed has been mapped by FEMA. The most recent maps for the area were developed in 2005. While zoning restrictions in place are adequate to ensure the protection of water resources in the GWR watershed, they are not in reality providing the desired results. This is due to a number of factors including; the complexity of the regulations which makes them difficult to interpret and enforce; a lack of enforcement capability; lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of landowners; and the grand-fathering of previous uses. These shortcomings in Shoreland protection were also noted at the Great Works River Community Forum in 2005.
Continued on page 39 35
Annually- Annually- Summer '07-'16 Annuallly- Annuallly- 2006 beginning and Immediately, ongoing Anually- 2007 beginning Annually- Summer 2007-2016 N/A N/A Immediately N/A Ongoing N/Aongoing and 2008
Costs Costs Schedule
$1,000 $1,000 $500/yr $500/yrongoing and 2009 $500/yr $500/yr $500/yrongoing and 2007
teer
$2,000/yrongoing and 2007
un $2,000/site 2008 By
Goal-$5,000 2007-2008
ol
V
Private
ns
e w
at
t
To
S
r r
ral e
e
h
GWR Watershed Management Plan– January 2007 2007 January Plan– Management Watershed GWR
Ot
319
ther Fed ther
O
ne DEP ne
rs
i Funding Source e
n Ma
ow
Land s
chool
S
ns
ow
T
d Trusts d
Lan YCSWCD
xxxxxx xx BBLA
Responsible PartyResponsible Re sponsi bl e Pa rty Funding Source GWR Committees GWR
xxx x x x xx x GWRWC xxxxxx x x x x x x x x x xxx xxx x xx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx xx xx x x x xxx xx x x x Action ItemsAction ** = highest priority Table 9.2.1. GWR NPS Action Plan EDUCATION/STEWARDSHIP PLANNING **Move hazardous waste pick-up days waste pick-up hazardous **Move issues courses. on golf quality water **Address issues River include in to SPO Towns, Encourage Plans Comprehensive ** Develop an Adopt-a-Stream program in the Goodall Goodall the in program Adopt-a-Stream an Develop ** watershed. Brook BBLA newspaper, resourcessuch as TV, **Utilize education watershed meetings public for website, Encourage cluster development and low impact and low impact development cluster Encourage development Develop a kiosk at boat launches with information on information launches with boat a kiosk at Develop species invasive laws, and fish boating wildlife, Conservation a regional idea of the Explore Commission Sponsor a seminar for waterfront owners Sponsor a seminar waterfront for **Install watershed signs along road (example: "You "You signs watershed (example: **Install road along Watershed") River Works Great the entering are survey plant invasive preliminary for volunteers **Train (milfoil) would raise local that foundation an education Develop issuesawareness WQ of campaign on the focused Implement an educational Councils Town to present & headwaters through shoreland zoning about realtors Educate recertification **Investigate the development of educational programs educational of development the **Investigate Schools High Jr, High and Sanfod in 36
Beginning SummerBeginning ongoing and 2007 Summer 2007 and ongoing Immediately and Immediately ongoing Summer 2007 and ongoing and Immediately ongoing N/A Immediately N/A 2007-2008 N/A N/A N/A 2007 Beginning Costs Schedule $1,000 Summer 2007 Summer $1,000
$500/yr $500/yr
$3,000/yr 2007-2016 Annually $2,000/yr
Volunteer
te
a
v i
Pr
s
e t
own ta
T S
GWR Watershed Management Plan– January 2007 2007 January Plan– Management Watershed GWR
9 Other Other
1
3
Other Federal Other
s
er
Maine DEP Maine wn
do
an
L
ools
h
Sc
Towns
Land Trusts Land
mm.
o
YCSWCD
C
g
n i BBLA
Responsible PartyResponsible FundingSource GWR Steer GWR
xx GWRWC xxxxx xxx x xxx x x xxx xxxx xx xxx x x xxx x x x xxx Action ItemsAction Table 9.2.1 continued. ** = highest priority WATER QUALITY MONITORING QUALITY WATER **Assess the impact of storm drains in the watershed storm watershed **Assess drains of in the impact the stormand stencil drains sites monitoring number along Goodall of Expand watershed and in NGWR Brook dams membersCoalition issue investigate and buffer forest through Stewardship **Encourage volunteer Hold demonstrations. educational planting sites demos profile high at install BMP to parties work plan discounts for nurseries get local to with (work plantings). buffer Laws Zoning Riparian of enforcement Encourage **Continue monitoring the health of GWR, its GWR, of health the monitoring **Continue of monitoring Incorporate Lake. BB and tributaries, metals(and storm sampling) samplinginto heavy junkyard and Emery's , Beg Bauneg Sanford regime at ( sites). parameters summarized quality water the **Synthesize of parts or tributaries which and indicate in this report mainstem to need morethe testing good, appear poor. and look determine, CAMPAIGN BUFFER Recruit Shoreline Stewards to observe and document and document observe to Stewards Shoreline Recruit problems riparian/buffer Support CEO's in monitoring and enforcement of of enforcement and monitoring in CEO's Support habitat riparian protecting land to acquire to land trusts local with Coordinate areas riparian protect 37
Summer 2007 and ongoing Immediately and Immediately ongoing and Immediately, ongoing N/A Summer 2007 N/A 2007-2008 N/A and ongoing Annually TBD 2007-2016 Costs Schedule $2,500 Summer 2007 Summer $2,500 2007 Spring/Summer $5,000 2008 Spring/Summer $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $2,000/yr 2007-2008 $1,000/yr
$20,000/yr $1,250,000 2007 and ongoing and 2007 $1,250,000
Volunteer
te
a x
v i
Pr
s
e t
own ta
T S
x
GWR Watershed Management Plan– January 2007 2007 January Plan– Management Watershed GWR
9 Other Other
1
3
Other Federal Other
s
er
Maine DEP Maine wn
do
an
L
ools
h
Sc
Towns
Land Trusts Land
mm.
o
YCSWCD
C
g
n i xx xx BBLA
Responsible PartyResponsible FundingSource
GWR Steer GWR GWRWC xxxx x x xx x x x xxxx xx xx x xxxxxx xxx xxxx x x x xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxxx xx x x xx xxxxxx Action ItemsAction Table 9.2.1 continued. ** =highest priority **Organize Volunteers to install BMPs at high priority & & high priority at install BMPs to Volunteers **Organize sites high impact **Implement BMPs **Meet with towns to discuss fixing town road sitesroad town discuss to towns with fixing **Meet surveys from **Send postcard mailing to people with identified identified with people mailing to postcard **Send have they them know Let problem sites surveys. from resources and issues list of and provide soil designs all lossDevelop for BMP estimates and/or sites high priority cost with inventory retrofit stormwater a Create subwatershed Brook Goodall estimates for Acquire funding to identify sources of bacterial bacterial sourcesof identify to funding Acquire contamination businessinto Look sponsorship water placing for sites signsbridges and test at quality long-term and implement plan for a funding Develop and maintenance repair road sale raise money to yard parade July of a 4th Organize and outreach education for Adams, Proposal for Restoration Stream Prepare Brooks and Goodall Lover's FUNDING 319 and DEP proposals Maine grant from **Develop sites sources address funding to high priority other BMP IMPLEMENTATION 38 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
9. Implementation 9.1 Plan Oversight The GWRWC and partners will need to continue to meet regularly and be diligent in coordinating resources to implement practices that will reduce NPS pollution in the GWR watershed. This task cannot be accomplished alone, and will require the support of a number of watershed groups including the Bauneg Beg Lake Association, York County Soil and Water Conservation District, Maine DEP, local Land Trusts, watershed towns, schools, and individual landowners. A coordinated implementation effort in the GWR watershed was initiated in September 2006. On September 21, 2006 the York County Soil and Water Conservation District, Maine DEP, Great Works River Watershed Coalition and Bauneg Beg Lake Association held an evening meeting to organize community actions in the watershed. As part of this meeting three action committees were formed:
• Funding & Planning: • Education/Stewardship & Water Quality Monitoring: • Buffer Campaign & BMP Implementation:
These action committees are charged to implement projects and actions with agency and watershed organization support. This action group will meet at least twice per year as part of the Great Works River Watershed Coalition. Highlights of the highest priority action items for each committee are as follows (see Table 9.2.1 on pages 36-38 for a full list of prioritized action items):
Funding & Planning • Develop grant proposals from Maine DEP 319 and other funding sources to address high priority sites. • Move hazardous waste pick-up days.
Education/Stewardship & Water Quality Monitoring: • Investigate educational programs in Sanford High School and Jr. High School. • Develop an adopt-a-stream program in the Goodall Brook watershed. • Send press releases to local newspapers ( Weekly Sentinel, Observer, Foster’s Daily Democrat, Sanford News) • Train volunteers to conduct an annual invasive plant survey.
39 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
Buffer Campaign & BMP Implementation • Hold volunteer work parties to install BMP demonstration projects at high profile sites. • Organize volunteers for BMP implementation projects. • Send postcard mailing to landowners who own property identified as a problem site in surveys. Let people know about the issues and provide a list of resources. • Meet with towns to discuss roads sites identified in surveys.
9.2 Action Plan The GWRWC Steering Committee will work toward improving and implementing an Action Plan which consists of action items within six major categories: Education/ Stewardship, Planning, Water Quality Monitoring, Buffer Campaign, Funding, and BMP Implementation (Table 9.2.1, pages 36 - 38). This Action Plan was developed to follow-up on tasks developed in the 1999, 2000 and 2004 watershed surveys, and from feedback received by 38 community members and13 environmental professionals at the 2005 Community Forum. Forum participants (local town council members, river abutters, and landowners from Bauneg Beg Pond) formed small groups to discuss critical watershed issues related to water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation, and land development issues that need to be addressed in the watershed. Next, the break-out groups listed and prioritized potential solutions for the issues and presented them to the entire group. These ideas have been incorporated into the Action Plan. This Action Plan outlines responsible parties, potential funding sources, approximate costs, and an implementation schedule for each task within each of the six categories.
Education/Stewardship The Education and Stewardship component of the Action Plan involves a variety of activities that will be directed at raising local awareness of water quality issues and interest in voluntary BMPs to reduce NPS pollution. Presentations to town councils, realtors, schools, and waterfront landowners are at the forefront of the plan. Informative kiosks at boat landings and utilization of media resources such as TV, newspaper, the BBLA website, and public meetings are also a must.
Planning The planning component of the Action Plan focuses on protecting undeveloped land by encouraging towns to include river issues in comprehensive plans. Additional action items include looking into a regional conservation commission, and encouraging 40 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 cluster and low impact development (LID).
Water Quality Monitoring While the GWRWC has a strong water quality monitoring component, additional action is required to monitor the health of the GWR and its tributaries on a long-term basis. This requires seeking funding to continue monitoring of existing sites, as well as the number of monitoring sites, assessing the impacts of storm drains, conducting storm stenciling, and investigating the effects of the dams. To better prioritize monitoring efforts, a further analysis of existing water quality data is also recommended. This can be accomplished by synthesizing the water quality parameters summarized in this report and indicating which tributaries or parts of the GWR mainstem appear good, need more testing to determine, or appear poor. The resulting information could also be presented in map format.
Buffer Campaign The buffer campaign places a strong emphasis on improving protection of shoreland vegetated buffers, to meet or exceed the existing state guidelines requiring that no more than 40% of existing woody vegetation in the 250 foot wide shoreland zone is removed. Action items include recruiting shoreline stewards to observe and document riparian buffer problems, encouraging stewardship through buffer planting demonstrations, supporting and encouraging code enforcement officers in protecting riparian habitat through enforcement of Riparian Zoning Laws. Additionally, the GWRWC will coordinate with local land trusts in acquiring land within riparian zones.
Funding The funding component of the Action Plan focuses on acquiring funding to support NPS education, monitoring and implementation. Funding ideas include developing grant proposals to address high priority sites, to identify sources of bacterial contamination, to fund long-term road repair and maintenance and to specifically restore Lover’s and Goodall Brooks. An annual 4th of July parade yard sale is proposed to help raise money for the education component of the Action Plan.
BMP Implementation BMP Implementation is a major component of the Action Plan and relies on the success of many of the other components, especially Education/Stewardship and Funding. Estimated costs for implementing BMPs in the watershed currently exceeds $1,250,000 (Appendix C, page 50), but may be higher. The higher costs are
41 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007 associated with more expensive urban stormwater BMPs in the highly developed Goodall Brook subwatershed. This area needs a stormwater retrofit inventory with associated cost estimates in order to determine just how much more funding is needed above the current estimate. There are several steps that need to be taken over several years as part of the BMP implementation process. These include developing BMP designs for all high priority sites, organizing volunteers or YCC to install BMPs at all high priority and high impact sites, developing a plan to address medium and low priority sites, and revisiting unranked sites. Successful BMP implementation will require strong BMP project management skills involving public outreach, volunteer training, coordination with watershed municipalities, and technical oversight during the installation process.
9.3 Actions to Achieve Self-Sustaining One of the most challenging components of implementing the Action Plan for the GWR will be obtaining long-term financial support. Grants such as the Maine DEP 319 grant, or contracts with local towns are concepts that should be pursued immediately. Community grants will help aid smaller projects, and offset the costs of monitoring and education until more secure funding can be obtained. Ideas for short-term community funding opportunities will require time and annual letter writing campaigns. The GWRWC has considered membership dues as a long-term strategy. Hiring a full or part time executive director has been a successful strategy for other watershed groups in Maine. Another key component of achieving self-sustaining support of the plan is to keep volunteers happy and interested in continuing their work. This can be accomplished by creating and celebrating fun learning experiences such as canoe and hiking trips in the watershed, and holding volunteer recognition ceremonies.
9.4 Evaluation Plan To stay abreast on the effectiveness of the Management Plan, the GWRWC should work towards releasing an annual report (or posting to the website) that highlights the progress and activities in comparison to the timeline set forth in the Action Plan. Tasks listed in the Action Plan should be tracked and recorded as they occur, and new tasks should be added to the plan as needed. Water quality monitoring should be evaluated annually both on a seasonal basis and compared with long-term water quality records to determine if improvements are occurring as implementation proceeds.
42 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
CONCLUSION
Combined, the three watershed surveys and the water quality monitoring data collected by the GWRWC indicate that the Great Works River and its tributaries are adversely affected by land use. Eighty percent (80%) of the identified nonpoint source pollution sites throughout the watershed were rated as medium or high priority for remediation (Figure 6.2.1, page 25). The majority of these sites were located on roads, driveways, parking lots, or residential properties (Figure 6.1.1, page 23). Thirty- eight percent (38%) of all NPS observations were related to soil erosion (Figure 6.1.2, page 23), or resulted from direct flow of polluted runoff to the stream (21%). Smaller percentages made up a variety of other problems. As a result, water quality violations are considerable in both the mainstem and tributaries of the GWR, and include low levels of dissolved oxygen, high levels of total phosphorus and E. coli contamination. The greatest concentration of high priority and high impacts sites are located in the highly urbanized Goodall Brook subwatershed, and around the shores of Bauneg Beg Lake (Map 8, page 80). The GWR Action Plan (pages 36 - 43) calls for remediation of these high priority and high impact sites first. The medium priority sites make up the bulk of the NPS sites (56%), require more time and effort to remedy, and likely have the greatest cumulative impact. Low and unranked sites are listed lower on the Action Plan, but should not be forgotten since their cumulative impact could also be considerable. The doubling of volunteer efforts in the GWR since 2002 is a positive sign that education and outreach is working. In addition, there are at least three active regional land trusts that have protected many acres of valuable land in the watershed. These current volunteers and the attentive watershed municipalities provide the impetus for future NPS education and implementation in the watershed, and a strong body for reducing the NPS inputs to the Great Works River and the downstream Salmon Falls Estuary.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bauneg Beg Lake Watershed Survey Results (July 2000). Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Bauneg Beg Lake Association. Portland, ME.
Great Works River Watershed Coalition: 2002 Water Quality Monitoring Data Report (2003). South Berwick, ME.
43 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
Great Works River Watershed Coalition: 2003 Water Quality Monitoring Data Report (2003). South Berwick, ME.
Great Works River Watershed Coalition: 2004 Water Quality Monitoring Data Report (2004). South Berwick, ME.
Great Works River Watershed Coalition: 2005 Water Quality Monitoring Data Report (2005). South Berwick, ME.
Great Works River Watershed Survey Project (May 2002). York County Soil and Water Conservation District. Alfred, ME.
Merriland River, Branch Brook, and Little River Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan (November 2004). Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve. Wells, ME.
Northern Great Works River Watershed Survey Report (August 2005). York County Soil and Water Conservation District. Alfred, ME.
Town of Wells, Maine Comprehensive Plan Update (February 24, 2005). Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission. Springvale, ME.
Town of York Zoning Ordinance (November 8, 2005). Town of York. York, ME.
REFERENCES CITED
Banner, A. 2002. Landcover and Wetlands of the Gulf of Maine (GOML7). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Gulf of Maine Program. Maine Office of Geographic Information Systems. Augusta, ME.
Field, D.B. 1994. The Forest Laws of Maine: Fourth Edition. Maine Forest Service. Augusta, ME.
GWRWC. 2004. Great Works River Watershed Coalition: 2004 Water Quality Monitoring Data Report. South Berwick, ME.
Hach Chemical, 2004. H2O University. 19 February 2004. http://www.hach.com/h2ou/. 20 March 2006.
Maine DIFW. 2004. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Endangered and Threatened Species Group Resource Management Report. Augusta, ME.
Maine DIFW. 2005. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Fish Stocking (Lakes and Streams), 1989-present. http://pearl.maine.edu/data.htm. 17 April 2006.
44 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
Maine DIFW, 2005. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Stream Electrofishing Surveys. http://pearl.maine.edu/data.htm. 14 April 2006.
MEDEP, 2006a. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land and Water Quality. Maine Erosion and Sedimentation Control BMPs. http:// www.maine.gov.gov/dep/blwq/docstand/escbmps/. 14 April 2006.
MEDEP, 2006b. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Hydropower Projects in Maine. January 1, 2006.
MEDEP and MACD, 2006. Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Maine Association of Conservation Districts. Sewall Pond PCAP-TMDL Report. Maine DEPLW-0735. March 2006.
MEDOC and MGS, 2006. Maine Department of Conservation and Maine Geological Survey. Aquifer Polygons. Maine Office of Geographic Information Systems. Augusta, ME.
MEMA, 2006. Maine Emergency Management Agency. The Hazards We Face: Dam Failure. http://www.state.me.us/mema/hazards/dam.htm. 17 April 2006.
MIDEQ, 1998. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality Division. Guidebook of Best Management Practices for Michigan Watersheds. October, 1998. http://www.deq.state.mi.usdocuments/deq-swq-nps-Intro.pdf. 26 April 2006.
Mitnik, P. 1999. A Phased TMDL for the Salmon Falls River Watershed: Use Attainability Analysis for the Salmon Falls River. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land and Water Quality. Augusta, ME.
MNAP, 2006. Maine Natural Areas Program. Focus Areas of Ecological Significance. http://www.mainenaturalareas.org/docs/program_activities/ land_trust_descriptions.php. 30 March 2006.
MRSA, 2006. Maine Revised Statutes Annotated. Title 38 Chapter 3, Subchapter 1, Article 4-A, § 465. http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/38/title38ch3.pdf. 24 April 2006.
Murch, D., Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land and Water Quality. Personal Communication. April 27, 2006.
Nedeau, E.J., McCollough, M.A., and B.I. Swartz. 2000. The Freshwater Mussels of Maine. Maine Dept. of Inland Fish and Wildlife. Augusta, ME.
45
APPENDICES
46 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix A Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
Algae Bloom: A growth of algae resulting from ex- Mulch: A layer of hay or other material covering the land cessive nutrient levels or other physical and chemical surface that holds soil in place. It aids in the establish- conditions that enable algae to reproduce rapidly. ment of vegetation by preventing erosion, conserving Best Management Practices (BMPs): Techniques moisture, and minimizing temperature to reduce nonpoint source impacts from construction, fluctuations. agriculture, timber harvesting, marinas, and stormwa- Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS): Runoff that has ter. picked up contaminants or nutrients from the landscape Buffers (Riparian Zone): Land bordering a river, (or air), as it flows over the surface of the land to a body stream, or wetland for the protection of water quality, of water. wildlife, and/or recreation. Phosphorus: An element found throughout the environ- Culvert: A conduit through which surface water can ment; it is a nutrient essential to all living organisms. flow under or across roads and driveways. Culverts Phosphorus binds to soil particles, is found in fertilizers, are usually a pipe and can be made of metal, wood, sewage, and motor oil, and is found in high concentra- plastic, or concrete. tions in stormwater runoff. The amount of phosphorus Direct Flow: Overland flow of water with attached present in a lake determines the lake's production of al- sediments, nutrients and pollutants which causes gae. A very small change in phosphorus levels can dra- increased surface runoff to nearby water bodies. This matically increase algae growth. type of flow is enhanced by, and associated with Point Source Pollution: Readily identifiable inputs other NPS problems such as inadequate buffers, and where waste is discharged to the receiving waters from a poorly designed or failing culverts and ditches. pipe or drain. Most industrial wastes are discharged to Dissolved Oxygen (DO): Oxygen dissolved in the rivers and the sea in this way. With few exceptions, most water is essential for all plants and animals living in point source waste discharges, are controlled by EPA. the water. DO is a measurement of the amount of Runoff: Water that drains or flows across the surface of oxygen in the water that is available to these plants the land. and animals. The amount of DO is used as an indica- Sediment: Mineral and organic soil material that is trans- tor of water quality and the level of life that the water ported in suspension by wind or flowing water, from its can support. origin in another location. Diversion: A BMP used to intercept and direct sur- Septic System: An individual sewage treatment system face runoff. Diversions are usually channels or de- that typically includes a septic tank and leach field that pressions with a supporting ridge on the lower side, area buried in the ground. The septic tank allows sludge constructed across or at the bottom of a slope. to settle to the bottom and a scum of fats, greases and Ecosystem: A system formed by the interaction of a other lightweight materials to rise to the top. The remain- community of organisms with its environment. ing liquid flows to the leach field where it disperses
Erosion: Wearing away of rock or soil by the gradual through soil to reduce the number of bacteria and viruses. detachment of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, Shoreland: The area of land from the water line stretch- ice, and other mechanical and chemical forces. Hu- ing inland. The definition of this distance may vary by man activities can greatly speed this process. county zoning and state definitions. Fecal Coliform Bacteria: A group of bacteria that TMDL: A Total Maximum Daily Load is a calculation of are passed through the fecal excrement of humans, the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can livestock, and wildlife. They aid in the digestion of receive and still meet water quality standards, and an food. Escherichia coli (E. coli) are the most common allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources. member of fecal coliform bacteria. They can be sepa- Tributaries: Streams or rivers that flow to a large body of rated from the total coliform group by their ability to water. grow at elevated temperatures and are associated Vegetated Buffer: Areas of vegetation, left undisturbed only with the fecal material of warm-blooded animals. or planted between a developed area and a waterbody Glaciofluvial: Material moved by glaciers and subse- that are used to capture pollutants from surface water quently sorted and deposited by streams flowing from and groundwater. Buffer vegetation can include trees, the melting ice. The deposits are stratified and may shrubs, bushes, and ground cover plants. occur in the form of outwash plains, deltas, kames Vernal Pools: Seasonally flooded depressions found on eskers, and kame terraces. ancient soils with an impermeable layer such as a hard-
Glaciolacustrine Deposits: Sand, silt and clay de- pan, claypan, or volcanic basalt. posited on the bottom of huge temporary lakes that Water Quality: Pertaining to the presence and amounts formed either due to the melting glacial ice or by the of pollutants in water. blocking out of outlets for meltwater. Sand, silt and Watershed: The geographic region within which water clay remains suspended in fast-moving river water, drains into a particular river, stream, or body of water. A but in slow-moving water such as lakes these fine watershed includes hills, lowlands, and the body of water materials are deposited. into which the land drains. Watershed boundaries are Leach Field: The part of a septic system where the defined by the ridges of land separating watersheds. effluent from the septic tank disperses into the soil.
47
Appendix B: Rare Plants, Natural Communities and Animals in the GWR Watershed (MNAP, 2006).
Table B.1.
Scientific Name Common Name Status S-Rank G-Rank
Rare Plants Allium tricoccum Wild Leek SC S2 G5 Calamagrostis cinnoides Small Reed-grass n/a n/a n/a Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic White-cedar SC S2 G4 Clethra alnifolia Sweet Pepper-bush SC S2 G4 Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood E S1 G5 Eupatorium dubium Eastern Joe-pye Weed T S1 G5 Hottonia inflata Featherfoil T S1 G4 Ilex laevigata Smooth Winterberry Holly SC S2 G5 Isotria medeoloides Small Whorled Pogonia n/a n/a n/a Lindera benzoin Spicebush SC S3 G5 Platanthera flava Pale Green Orchis SC S2 G4 Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak n/a n/a n/a Quercus montana Chestnut Oak T S1 G5 Rhododendron maximum Great Rhododendron n/a n/a n/a Rhynchospora macrostachya Tall Beak-rush E S1 G4 Sassafras albidum Sassafras SC S2 G5 Saxifraga pensylvanica Swamp Saxifrage T S2 G5 Wolffia columbiana Columbia Water-meal T S2 G5 Xyris smalliana Yellow-eyed Grass E S1 G5
Natural Communities Atlantic white cedar bog Atlantic White Cedar Bog n/a S1 G3G4 Chestnut oak woodland Chestnut Oak Woodland n/a S1 n/a Leatherleaf boggy fen Leatherleaf Bog n/a S4 n/a Pitch pine - scrub oak barren Pitch Pine - Scrub Oak Barren n/a S1 G2 Red maple - sensitive fern swamp Red Maple Swamp n/a S4 n/a White oak - red oak forest White Oak - Red Oak Forest n/a S3 G5 Mixed graminoid - shrub marsh Grassy Shrub Marsh n/a S5 n/a Hemlock - hardwood pocket swamp Pocket Swamp n/a S2 n/a Sheep laurel dwarf shrub bog Dwarf Shrub Bog n/a n/a n/a
Rare Animals Callophrys hesseli Hessel’s Hairstreak E S1 G3G4 Coluber constrictor constrictor Northern Black Racer E S2 G5 Enallagma laterale New England Bluet SC S1 G3 Enallagma pictum Scarlet Bluet n/a n/a G3 Etheostoma fusiforme Swamp Darter n/a S1 G5 Sylvilagus transitionalis New England Cottontail SC S3 G5 Thamnophis sauritus Ribbon Snake SC S3 G5 Williamsonia fletcheri Ebony Boghaunter n/a n/a n/a Williamsonia lintneri Ringed Boghaunter E S1 G3 Clemmys guttata Spotted Turtle T S3 G5 Embydoidea blandingii Blandings Turtle E S2 G4 48 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix B
STATE RARITY RANKS (S-Rank)
Note: State Ranks are determined by the Maine Natural Areas Program.
S1 Critically imperiled in Maine because of extreme rarity (five or fewer occurrences or very few remain- ing individuals or acres) or because some aspect of its biology makes it especially vulnerable to extirpa- tion from the State of Maine.
S2 Imperiled in Maine because of rarity (6-20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or be- cause of other factors making it vulnerable to further decline.
S3 Rare in Maine (on the order of 20-100 occurrences).
S4 Apparently secure in Maine.
S5 Demonstrably secure in Maine.
GLOBAL RARITY RANKS (G-Rank)
Note: Global Ranks are determined by The Nature Conservancy.
G1 Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (five or fewer occurrences or very few remain- ing individuals or acres) or because some aspect of its biology makes it especially vulnerable to extirpa- tion from the State of Maine.
G2 Globally imperiled because of rarity (6-20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or be- cause of other factors making it vulnerable to further decline.
G3 Globally rare (on the order of 20-100 occurrences).
G4 Apparently secure globally.
G5 Demonstrably secure globally.
STATE LEGAL STATUS FOR PLANTS (Status)
Note: State legal status is according to 5 M.R.S.A. § 13076-13079, which mandates the Department of Conserva- tion to produce and biennially update the official list of Maine's endangered and threatened plants. The list is derived by a technical advisory committee of botanists who use data in the Natural Areas Program's database to recom- mend status changes to the Department of Conservation.
E ENDANGERED; Rare and in danger of being lost from the state in the foreseeable future, or federally listed as Endangered.
T THREATENED; Rare and, with further decline, could become endangered; or federally listed as Threatened.
SC SPECIAL CONCERN; Rare in Maine, based on available information, but not sufficiently rare to be considered Threatened or Endangered.
Source: http://www.state.me.us/doc/nrimc/mnap/factsheets/mnapfact.htm
49
Appendix C: BMP Cost Estimates 1999 Bauneg Beg Survey # of Sites Ranking Low High Costs Low ($50- 85 $500) $ 4,250 $ 42,500
Costs Medium 29 ($501-$2500) $ 14,529 $ 72,500
Costs High 5 ($2501-$25,000) $ 12,505 $ 125,000 $ 31,284 $ 240,000
2000 GWR (South) # of Sites Ranking Low High Costs Low ($50- 37 $500) $ 3,145 $ 18,500
Costs Medium 19 ($501-$2500) $ 9,519 $ 47,500
Costs High 19 ($2501-$25,000) $ 47,519 $ 475,000 $ 60,183 $ 541,000
2004 NGWR # of Sites Ranking Low High Costs Low ($50- 11 $500) $ 550 $ 5,500
Costs Medium 24 ($501-$2500) $ 12,024 $ 60,000
Costs High * 9 ($2501-$50,000) $ 22,509 $ 450,000 $ 35,083 $ 515,500
Survey Low Estimate High Estimate 1999 Survey$ 31,284 $ 240,000 200 Survey$ 60,183 $ 541,000 2004 Survey$ 35,083 $ 515,500 Total$ 126,550 $ 1,296,500 * Costs for implementing BMPs are higher for the NGWR watershed survey due to the more complicated nature of retrofitting highly urbanized areas. All costs are approximate. 50
Recommendations Recommendations waterbar/ diversion/ box. Culvert, mulch waterbar/ diversion/ box, culvert, establish buffer, vegetate, new surface material, seed and mulch establish buffer, terrace, surfacenew material, seed and mulch, deten- tion basin establish buffer, terrace, surfacenew material, rip diversion/ rap, waterbar/ box. Culvert, mulch, gut- ter and divertinto flow buffer, define footpaths establish buffer, add new surface material Priority Priority Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Rating Rating Impact
High High High High High Med Upgrade leach field(s) High Med Upgrade leach field(s) 9'x6' Low Low Low Med establish buffer, rip rap Area 44'x20' Low Med Low Low 16'x32' Med Med Low Med 30'x84' Med Med 13'x11' Med High Low Low 100'x28' High High High Med Affected Affected URVEY (see Survey SegmentURVEY (see Survey Map, page 71) Sites and Priority Ranking Sites and Priority Source of Pollution Source of Pollution slight surface erosion, bare soil, slight surface erosion, direct to lake flow lack of buffer, bare soil, unst. to construction site, direct flow lake. Note: erosion protection not in place! lack of buffer, moderate surface erosion, bare to soil, direct flow lake lack of buffer, moderate surface erosion, bare to soil, direct flow lake beach being used as boat ac- cess, unstable boat access, moderate surface erosion, bare soil, direct flow to lake, pet waste Septic system backup. Septic system backup. Possible filled-in swamp. Note: Resident objects to our going onto property. Septic system backup. Possible filled-in swamp. Note: Resident objects to our going onto property. Land Use E1-1 residential E1-10 residential E1-11 residential E1-12 residential E1-13 residential E1-2A beach access E1-2A beach Seg. # E1-15 A residential E1-15 B residential Appendix D: Documented NPS TABLE D.1. NPS SITES - BAUNEG BEG S 1999 51
Recommendations Recommendations maintenance, terrace, other-clean outdebris maintenance, rip rap, extend culvert, install plunge pool up and slopedown establish buffer, seed and mulch establish buffer, vege- tate, establish mulched or gravel footpaths establish buffer, new surface material, water- bar/diversion, mulch footpaths, don't rake to bare soil add new surface material erosion controls, new surface material, establish buffer, water- bar/diversion/box, culvert reditch, turnout, stabilize culvert inlet or outlet and road shoulders, replace culvert and make at least 10' longer maintenance, stabilize shoreline rip rap, with add gutters/stone apron, pick up pet waste Priority Priority Cost Cost GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Level Level Technical Technical Rating Rating Impact Med Med Med Med Med Low nr nr 3'x3' Med Low Low High Low Low 3'x3' Med Area 15'x7' Med Low Low High Low 15'x7' Med Low 25'x20' Low Med Low Low 12'x22' Low Med Low Low 15'x65' Med Med 19'x14' Low Med Low Low Affected Affected ke, lack of buffer Source of Pollution Source of Pollution lack of buffer, moderate surface erosion, to direct lake, flow shoreline erosion, unstable beach access slight surface erosion, bare soil, to la direct flow lack of buffer, moderate surface erosion, to direct lake, bareflow soil. Roof runoff from #154 adds to problem old boat house foundation, un- to lakestable bank, direct flow moderate shoulder erosion, to tributary direct flow unstable culvert I/o, clogged culvert slight surface erosion, moderate shoulder erosion, unstable cul- clogged cul- vert I/o, partially vert, direct flow to tributary moderate shoulder erosion, to lake direct flow bare soil, direct flow to lake, bare soil, direct flow shoreline erosion, pet waste Land Use E1-6 residential E1-7 residential E1-8 residential E1-4 residential E1-3 residential E1-5a residential E1-5B private road E1-5B private E1-2B residential E1-5C town road E1-5C town Seg. #
52
ate, don't bring in Recommendations Recommendations vegetate, new surface material, mulch, roofline trench vegetate, terrace, stablize pipe drainage establish buffer, vegetate, don't rake to bare soil, terrace, mulch and establish footpaths, define footpaths establish buffer, veget sand to make a beach vegetate, new surface material, seed and mulch build up road at end of Corbin's Way, waterbar/diversion/ box culvert maintenance, vegetate, new surface material, waterbar/ diversion/ box cul- vert, don't rake to bare soil, apply ero- sion control bark mulch establish buffer, terrace, waterbar/ diversion/box, culvert maintenance, erosion controls, new surface material, diversion/waterbar/ box. culvert, don't rake to bare soil, add mulch Priority Priority GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical High High High Med plunge pool/ dry diversionwell, Rating Rating Impact Low Low Low Med waterbar/diversion/box. culvert x21' Area 25'x8' Low Low Low Med 25'x8' Low Low Low 50'x30' Med Low High Low 25'x25' Med Low High Low 60'x30' Med Low Med Med 19'x35' High Med High Med 95'x40' High Med High Med 600' +/- 10'x100' Low Low Med Low 75'x100' Med Low High Low 25'x110' High Med High Med Affected Affected to lake, unstable Source of Pollution Source of Pollution moderate surface erosion, to lake direct flow moderate surface erosion, to lake, bare soil direct flow unstable boat access, shoreline erosion, slight surface erosion direct flow to lake, stockpiled direct flow soil, beach enhancement bare soil, unstable construction site severe surface erosion, direct to lake flow moderate surface erosion, to lake, runoff from direct flow erosion driveway, waterfront At Camp Waban boat launch - severe surface erosion, bare soil, direct flow beach access direct flow to lake through direct flow sandbuffer, accumu-winter lation, road contoured to toward lake concentrate flow Gray cabin on water - severe cabin on water Gray surface erosion, lack of buffer, to lake direct flow severe surface erosion, lack of to buffer, bare soil, direct flow lake, beach enhancement beach access mercial Land Use commercial, beach, com- E1-9 E2-1 town road E2-1 town E2-12 residential E2-13 residential road E2-15 private E2-10 residential E2-11 residential E1-9A commercial E1-9B Seg. # E2-14A residential E2-14B driveway
53
rm at top of drive- Recommendations Recommendations establish buffer, vegetate, don't rake to bare soil, waterbar/diversion/box. Culvert level spreader,with bury trench going to lake don't rake to bare soil, establish buffer, vegetate, new surface material, water- bar/diversion waterbar/ diversion/ box. culvert, vege- sur-tate, close off to vehicles or new face material establish buffer, vegetate, waterbar/ diversion/box. culvert, bark mulch vegetate, establish buffer, terrace, add stairs vegetate, install be way establish buffer, terrace steps down bank rip rap, terrace, cleanup campfire residue establish buffer, turnout, waterbar/ diversion, divert trail and close off sec- tion adjacent to lake Priority Priority GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Rating Rating Impact Low Low Low Med establish buffer, don’t rake to bare soil Area 30'x5' Low Low Low Med 30'x5' Low Low Low 18'x12' Low Low Low Med maintenance, removal town 30'x30' Med Med Med Med 15'x50' Low Low Low Med 50'x75' Med Med Med Med 25'x30' High Med High Med 20'x20' Low Low Low Med maintenance, establish buffer 12'x100' Low Low Low Med waterbar/ diversion/ box, culvert 100'x35' Med Low High Low 25'x100' Med Low High Low 10'x160' Med Med Med Med Affected Affected erosion 25'x100' Med Low Low Med Low Low Med erosion 25'x100' flow to lake flow e erosion 500'x8' Low Low Low Med establish buffer, install berm Source of Pollution Source of Pollution slight surface erosion, steep direct slope with moderate surface erosion, bare soil, direct flow to lake slight surface erosion, snow dump leaving large sand resi- moderate surface erosion, bare soil, direct flow to lake moderate surface erosion, bare soil moderate surface erosion, di- to lake, steps rect flow slight surface erosion, direct to lake flow moderate surface erosion, to lake direct flow severe surface erosion, direct to lake flow moderate surface erosion slight surface erosion, to flow beach beach access access Land Use E2-2 residential driveway E2-3 E2-16 residential E2-17 residential E2-18 E2-19 residential to lake, direct flow bare soil 30'x30' surface E2-20 residential moderate E2-21 driveway E2-22 residential E2-23 residential E2-24 E2-25 private road slight surfac E2-4B lake R.O.W. E2-4A lake R.O.W. Seg. #
54
to correct the mess Recommendations Recommendations establish buffer, new surfaceestablish buffer, new material, waterbar/diversion/ box.culvert Ed. note: DEP and the town of Sanford must take action mostwhich leaches likely into the lake and possibly into neighboring well. recommend a look-see since our ex- pertise is limited maintenance, vegetate, waterbar/ diversion/ box culvert, don't rake to bare soil, slope from stairs away new lake establish buffer, vegetate, NOTE: improvements begun! maintenance, surface new material, waterbar/diversion/ box, culvert maintenance, waterbar/diversion/box. erosion controls, crushed stone under roof edge Priority Priority GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Low Low Med vegetate, don't rake to bare soil Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Rating Rating Impact nr nr nr nr Med Low Low High Med Low Low High High High Med Med Remove pipe! See E2-1! Install drywell Area 3'x20' Med 5'x25' Low Low Low Low Low Low Med terrace & vegetate 10'x20' Low Low Low Med vegetate, terrace vegetate, 10'x20' Low Low Med Low 10'x10' Low Low Med Low 10'x30' Low Low Med Low 10'x150' Med Low Low High establish buffer 10'x150' Med establish Low High Low 100'x100' nr nr nr nr Affected Affected osion 18'x30' Low Low Low Med to lake, unstable Source of Pollution Source of Pollution Yard - asbestos, insulation and boardwall piled in back yard to lake. slopes down which severe surface erosion, direct to lake flow drainage pipe under street may contaminantscarry ???, direct access to lake through swamp area slight surface erosion, out- new side construction near lake, digging out steps to water. CONSRUCTION STOPPED AS WATER TO TOO CLOSE slight surface erosion, direct moderate surface erosion, bare soil, direct flow construction site moderate surface erosion, di- to lake rect flow slight surface erosion, partially slight surface erosion due to to lake roof runoff, direct flow to lake, from Javica direct flow Lane and East 2 Land Use E3-7 residential E2-5 driveway moderate surface er E3-6 residential E3-1 town road E3-1 town soil bare E3-2 residential E3-3 residential Low 50'x50' Low E3-5 residential E3-4 residential E2-6 driveway driveway E2-6 E2-7 E2-8 residential driveway moderate surface erosion E2-9 residential E3-10 residential Seg. #
55
Recommendations Recommendations tablish buffer, vegetate tablish buffer, vegetate waterbar/diversion/box. culvert, other?? establish buffer, waterbar/diversion/ box. culvert, other=stairs-see sheet establish buffer,rip rap, waterbar/ diversion/box, culvert maintenance, vegetate, build up road, erosion controls establish buffer, install berm to establish buffer, install berm to establish buffer, build up driveway on Priority Priority GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Med Low Low High waterbar/diversion/box. culvert waterbar/diversion/box. High Low Med Low Rating Rating Impact nr nr nr nr High Low Med Med Low High Low Med establish buffer, vegetate total Area 70'x20' Med Med Med Low 40'x50' Low Low Med Low 10'x10' Low Low Low Med vegetate 10'x10' Low Low Med Low 50'x25' Low Low Low Med es 50'x25' Low Low Med Low 2 areas 105'x10' Med Med Low Med establish buffer, terrace 136'x10' Med Med Med Med 25'x100' Low es Low Med Low 10'x100' Med Low Med Med Affected Affected Source of Pollution Source of Pollution lack of buffer, moderate surface erosion, bare to soil, direct flow lake slight surface erosion, bare soil, to lake direct flow lack of buffer, moderate surface erosion, bare to soil, direct flow lake lack of buffer, moderate surface erosion, bare to soil, direct flow lake, roof run-off slight surface erosion, lack of to buffer, bare soil, direct flow lake, roof runoff Residents (2 of 3) object to sur- slight surface erosion, direct to lake flow moderate surface erosion, to lake direct flow severe shoulder erosion, mod- erate ditch erosion, direct flow moderate surface erosion, to lake direct flow severe surface erosion, direct moderate surface erosion, to lake direct flow (rte. 4) state road Land Use E5-2 E5-3 nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr E5-1 E5-1 E4-2 residential E4-3 road E4-4 private E3-8 residential slight surface erosion Med Low None Low E3-9 residential E4-1 residential W1-1 residential W1-3 residential W1-2 residential E4-4A residential W1-4A residential access W1-4B boat Seg. #
56
Recommendations Recommendations reshape road or ditch, turnout, broad based dip surfaceestablish buffer, new material, reshape road or ditch, seed and mulch establish buffer, seed and mulch, stop mowing detention basin, surface new material, rip rap, reshape road or ditch, seed and mulch surfaceestablish buffer, new material, waterbar/diversion/ box.culvert, seed and mulch establish buffer, vegetate, terrace the other (?stairs off bank bank, near stairs going into house) establish buffer, vegetate, rip rap, waterbar/diversion/ box, culvert establish buffer, waterbar/diversion/ box, culvert surfacenew material, waterbar/ diversion/box, culvert reshape road or ditch, on S. waterbar side of drive 10' E. of handicap access, into grass divert flow establish buffer, vegetate, don't rake to bare soil Priority Priority GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Low Low Low Med Low Low Rating Rating Impact 20' Low Low Low Med Low Low 20' Low Area 52'x6' Low Low Low Med 52'x6' Low Low Low 30'x9' High Low None High establish buffer, stop dumping sand 30'x6' 20'x30' Low Low Med Low 48'x10' Low Low Med Low 10'x25' Med Med Med Med 128'x10' High Med High Med 21'x120' Med Med Med Med 133'x10' High Med High Med 130'x10' Med Low High Low 250' x12' High Med Med High 30'x10' & Affected Affected Source of Pollution Source of Pollution severe surface erosion, poor toshaping, lake direct flow run-off coming from the road, severe surface erosion, lack of to buffer, bare soil, direct flow lake, unstable boat access slight surface erosion, bare soil, to lake direct flow poor shaping, bare soil, moder- ate surface erosion, direct flow to lake lack of buffer, moderate surface erosion, bare to soil, direct flow lake lack of buffer, moderate surface erosion, bare to soil, direct flow lake bare soil, other (sand dumping down bank into pond) slight surface erosion, lack of to buffer, bare soil, direct flow lake, shoreline erosion slight surface erosion, bare soil, to lake direct flow moderate surface erosion, bare soil, direct flow to lake poor shaping, moderate surface erosion lack of buffer, slight surface erosion, pet waste beach dential access trail/path, Land Use beach, resi- W1-5 private road W1-5 private W1-6 boat access W1-6 boat W2-2 residential driveway W2-3 W2-4 W2-5 residential W2-6 residential W2-7 residential W2-8 trail/path W2-9 residential driveway W3-1 W3-10 Seg. #
57
Recommendations Recommendations establish buffer, terrace, define path to dock establish buffer, seed and mulch, don't rake to bare soil, move picnic tables closer to house and define path to dock vegetate, new surface material, crushed stone apron terrace (steps), waterbar/diversion, bark mulch seed and mulch, leave buffer below hammock establish buffer, retaining needs wall major maintenance or replace with riprap or vegetation, avoid shoreline disturbance puttingwhen in boat waterbar/diversion/box. culvert, seed and mulch establish buffer, vegetate, rip rap, waterbar/diversion/box. Culvert at top of steps, sweep dirt off driveway before rain, add shrub/ground cover buffer off patio and below rock wall new surfacenew material, waterbar/ diversion/box, culvert terrace - add 1 tier, add another step or two going down to steps water/dock, establish terracing, buffer below don't whack weed Low Priority Priority GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Low Med/ Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Rating Rating Impact Area 65'x2' Low Low Low Med 65'x2' Low Low Low 42'x6' Low Low Low Med don't rake to bare soil 30'x30' Low Low Med Low 40'x12' Low Med 30'x25' Med Med Med Low 30'x15' High Low Med High culvert pave, new Affected Affected ion, bare soil Low Low Low Med flow to lake, flow erosion 50'x10' Med Low Low High Low Low Med erosion 50'x10' Source of Pollution Source of Pollution slight surface erosion, bare soil, lack of buffer slight surface erosion (from roof runoff) slight surface erosion, bare soil, unstable construction site, pet slight shoulder erosion, bare soil, direct flow to tributary moderate surface erosion, lack of buffer, direct Land Use W3-2 commercial W3-3 private road severe surface erosion W3-5 residential W3-6 slight surface erosion (very) beach lack of buffer W3-7 driveway W3-8 residential Low slight surface erosion None Low 100'x40' road Med Low W4-1 private Low Low Low Low Med Low Med W3-4 trail/path slight surface eros W3-9 beach shoreline erosion Med shoreline Low Low Low W3-9 beach 30' W3-12 residential W4-10 residential slight surface slight W4-10 residential W3-11 residential Seg. #
58
Recommendations Recommendations ish buffer, vegetate, terrace maintain road retaining other walls, (tension pond behind stonewith for natural dry well) culvert waterbar/diversion/box, (at least 2) cul- diversion/box, terrace, waterbar/ vert, establish stable foot path surfaceestablish buffer, new material, waterbar/diversion/ box, culvert, divert into water areawooded next to lot #93, add catch basin in area,woods seed and mulch, put in berm across road by access road to well terrace, vegetate or bark mulch, other well) (dry terrace, add retaining remove onewall, beach access surfacenew material (crushed stone if plow) don't they build up road, reshape road or ditch, 2 hot top rubber speedwaterbars, bump Priority Priority GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Low Low Low Med Low Low Rating Rating Impact nr nr nr nr Low Low Med Low Low Med Low High Area 30'x6' 30'x1' Low Low Low Med 30'x1' Low Low Low 40'x12' Med Low High Low 20'x40' Med Low High Low 12'x12' Low Low nr Med establish buffer 12'x12' Low establish Low nr Med wall) (rock 80'x40' nr other nr nr nr 125'x12' Med Med Low High 30'x10' & Affected Affected osion 80'x15' Low Med Low Low establ Low Low Med Low osion 80'x15' Source of Pollution Source of Pollution moderate surface erosion on road ledge and adjacent hill slope slight surface erosion, bare soil, under construction sandfill (new dumped over bank, deck new to lake,direct flow channelized runoff into site W4-2B moderate surface erosion, bare soil, direct flow to lake slight surface erosion, trench constructed from road to pond, to lake direct flow moderate surface erosion, bare soil moderate surface erosion, to lake direct flow severe surface erosion, bare soil Land Use W4-5 residential W4-6 residential moderate surface erosion road W4-8 private W4-3 residential slight surface erosion 75'x12' Low Low Low Med W4-11 residential moderate surface er W4-12 private road W4-12 private W4-14 residential W4-2A private road W4-2A private W4-2B residential slight surface erosion driveway W4-4B W4-7A residential driveway W4-7B Seg. #
59
ate, rip rap shore- t, establish footpath iversion/box. Cul- Recommendations Recommendations build up road, establish 25' buffer within on either side of launch, new surface material, waterbar/d vert (2), don't rake to bare soil rip rap, vegetate,other (rebuild col- lapsed or plantwall section shrubs) with erosion controls, surface new material, waterbar/diversion/box. Culvert establish buffer, vegetate, seed and mulch, bring in temporary steps to ac- establish buffer, vegetate, waterbar/ diversion/box. culver to lake establish buffer, veget line, add crushed stone apron under gutter vegetate, seed and mulch, other (most of problem be solvedwould road w/ improvements), clean up pet waste establish buffer, vegetate, seed and mulch bare soil around sitting area next to lake GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Priority Priority Cost Cost ed Med Med pave, diversion pave, Med ed Med Level Level Technical Technical Rating Rating Impact 0' Med Med Med Med culvert reditch, new Low Low Low Med Area 5'x40' Med High Low Low 5'x50' Low Med Low Low 7'x11' Low Med Low Low 10'x25' Low Low Med Low 25'x100' Med Low Low High Affected Affected n 40'x75' nr nr nr nr widen buffer widen nr nr nr nr n 40'x75' erosion 25'x100' Low Low Low Med waterbar/diversion/box, culvert waterbar/diversion/box, Med Low Low Low erosion 25'x100' erosion 10'x40' Low Low Low Med Low Low Low erosion 10'x40' rface erosion 25'x100' Med M Source of Pollution Source of Pollution moderate surface erosion - problem comes from road slight surface erosion, lack of buffer severe surface erosion, direct to lake flow slight surface erosion, lack of buffer slight surface erosion , bare soil, pet waste slight surface erosion, lack of buffer, shoreline erosion Land Use W5-1 road town moderate surface erosion 150 W4-9 boat ramp W4-9 boat W5-11 private road W5-11 private W5-10 residential shoreline erosion shoreline W5-10 residential 20' Low W4-13 Low Med Low residential slight surface erosio W5-12 residential W5-13 private road moderate su W5-14 private road moderate surface W5-16 residential W5-17 residential surface slight W5-18 residential W5-15 residential Seg. #
60
Recommendations Recommendations ish buffer, vegetate, mulch establish mulch, buffer, don't waterbar, rake to bare soil establish buffer, waterbar/diversion/box. Culvert, crushed stone at roof dripline waterbar/diversion/box. Culvert, re- shape road or ditch establish buffer, vegetate, sed and mulch, don't rake to bare soil vegetate, rock aprongreen by shed, bark mulch bare soil or plant shade- tolerant ground cover, use P free fertil- izer establish buffer, mulch, other (gutters or stone under drip edge) establish buffer, rip rap or slope back bank to less steep grade GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Priority Priority Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Rating Rating Impact nr nr nr 40' Low Low Low Med Low Low 40' Low Area 20'x60' Low establ Low Med Low 20'x40' Low Low Med Low Affected Affected e erosion 100' Low Low Low Med horeline erosion 20' Low Med Med Low Source of Pollution Source of Pollution slight surface erosion, lack of buffer, bare soil slight surface erosion, lack of buffer, bare soil slight surface erosion, bare soil, to lake direct flow slight surface erosion, lack of buffer Land Use W5-2 residential slight surface erosion 10'x20' Low Low Low Med W5-19 residential W5-20 residential severe surface erosion W5-21 private road moderate surfac 40' Low Low Low Med W5-22 residential W5-24 residential lack of buffer, s Seg. # W5-23A residential W5-23B residential
61
Recommendations Recommendations vegetate side areas, terrace with areas, vegetate side bark mulch and mulch seed basin catch clean out maintenance, traps rap, rip controls, re-ditch, erosion or ditch, turnout road reshape barrier, boulder waterbar and rip rap, and mulch seed or ditch, turnout, road reshape box culvert diversion, waterbar, or ditch, turnout, road reshape box culvert diversion, waterbar, catch basin vacuum maintenance, traps inlet, maintenance, stabilize culvert rip rap and vegetate, seed buffer, establish mulch culvert I & O stabilize and mulch vegetate, seed grade and mulch, vegetate, seed out fence animals controls, erosion Priority Priority Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Med Low Low High Low Med Low Rating Rating Impact TH) SURVEY (see Survey Segmentpage 71) Map, SURVEY (see Survey TH) High Med Low High High Med Med High Low Med Low Low 30' Med Med Med Med Med Med 30' Med 80' Low Low Low Med Low Low 80' Low 200' High High High Med High 200' High High road 60' + High High High Med 1000' High Med Med High Area 100' x 4'100' x Med Med High Low Affected Affected 200' along bare soil 10' x 30' High Med Low High osion 15' x 10' High Med Med High Source of Pollution Source of Pollution stormwater discharge pipe con- tains fine sediment severe shoulder erosion, slight ditch erosion, clogged culvert, poor shaping stream crossing,new culvert to hay field moderate shoulder erosion, live- stock in stream severe shoulder erosion, moder- ate shoulder erosion, lack of to buffer, bare soil, direct flow river, shoreline erosion severe surface erosion, severe shoulder erosion, poor shaping, ditch size exceeded, direct flow to trib, stockpiled soil severe surface erosion, poor to trib shaping, direct flow slight shoulder erosion, unstable culvert I/o moderate shoulder erosion, moderate ditch erosion, bare soil bare soil, unstable construction site (dirt) Town road road Town Land Use 3-F Driveway 3-F Driveway 1-A Easement moderate soil erosion, soil moderate 1-A Easement 1-B Easement slight surface er 1-E Beach 2-A road 2-B Private road soil 3-A Town bare 3-B Driveway Med road Low 50' Low Low 3-E Town 1-D Town road1-C Residential 1-D Town 2-C Driveway slight surface erosion 3-D Agriculture 100' Low Low Low Med 3-G Ag/Town road 3-G Ag/Town Seg. # TABLE D.2. NPS SITES - 2000 GREAT WORKS RIVER (SOU TABLE D.2. NPS SITES - WORKS RIVER 2000 GREAT 62
Recommendations Recommendations establish buffer, maintenance, new new maintenance, buffer, establish culvert or culvert inlet vegetate, stabilize mulch outlet, seed and off divert ATV and mulch, seed shoulder cul- vegetate, stabilize maintenance, vert outlet controls, build erosion maintenance, or ditch road reshape up rd., rip rap, buffer establish re-ditch buffer, establish re-ditch buffer, establish waterbar, controls, vegetate, erosion culvert box diversion, slope rip rap, new controls, erosion vegetate, erosion buffer, establish rap rip access, controls, terrace controls, erosion buffer, establish cows out of stream, alternative water system GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Priority Priority Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Rating Rating Impact High High High Med Med Low Low High 400' High High High Med High 400' High High 400' Med High High Low High 400' Med High 300' High High High Med High 300' High High Area 30' x 40' Med Med Med Med 50' x 15' Med Med Low Med 75' x 25' High High High Med 2000 sq. ' High High High Med Affected Affected erosion Low Low Low Med Low Low Low erosion Source of Pollution Source of Pollution severe shoulder erosion, moder- ate ditch erosion, unstable culver I/o, poor shaping, bare soil, direct to trib flow moderate surface erosion, bare soil, direct flow to pond slight shoulder erosion, lack of buffer moderate surface erosion, bare soil severe shoulder erosion, bare soil, direct flow to trib, shoreline erosion severe shoulder erosion, bare soil, direct flow to river, shoreline erosion moderate shoulder erosion, live- stock near stream, lack of buffer, no ditch livestock in stream, lack of buffer, moderate surface erosion, direct to river flow unstable boat access, bare soil, to pond,direct flow shoreline erosion, unstable pond access trail/path trail/path Trail/path State road/ Land Use Town road/ Town Private road/ 3-I Ag/Town road 3-I Ag/Town 3-J Town road slight shoulder erosion, bare soil 40' Low Low Low Med 3-L State road 3-L State 4-F Agriculture 3-K State road slight shoulder 4-A 4-B Agriculture road Town to trib lack of buffer, direct flow 100' x 2' High Med Med 4-E High 3-H Ag/Town road 3-H Ag/Town 3-N Agriculture livestock in stream 4-C 1200' 4-D Low Low Low Med 3-M Town road 3-M Town Seg. #
63
rols, stabilize cul- Recommendations Recommendations ditch, new culvert, new surface new surface culvert, ditch, new ditch turn- or road, material, reshape out debris, culvert I&O, remove stabilize bridge to replace plans rip rap, controls, vegetate, erosion box culvert diversion, waterbar, drains bridge redirect box waterbar, diversion, rip rap, culvert of win- maintenance buffer, establish box diversion, waterbar, ter sand, culvert turnout ditch, reshape culvert (larger), new turnout sand off of road winter clean culvert inlet stabilize controls, erosion ditch or road or outlet, reshape and seed controls, vegetate erosion mulch vege- maintenance, buffer, establish tate, erosion cont vert inlet or outlet, waterbar, diver- mulch and sion, box culvert, seed GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Priority Priority Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Med Low Low High Low Med Low Rating Rating Impact Med Low Low High 20' Med Med High Low Low High Med 20' Med 400' High Med Med High 400' High Med Med 100' Low Low Low Med 100' Low Low Low 300' Med Low Med Med 300' Med Med Low ditch Area and 75' 0.5 mile High High High Med 3000 sq' 100' x 30'100' x High High Med Med 150' x 40'150' x High Low Low High Affected Affected Source of Pollution Source of Pollution severe surface erosion, direct to river, shorelineflow erosion slight surface erosion, direct flow to river severe surface erosion, unstable culvert I/o, lack of buffer, poor to trib, silt shaping, direct flow fence improperly installed severe surface erosion, severe shoulder erosion, poor shaping, to river direct flow slight shoulder erosion, slight ditch erosion, bare soil, unstable to construction site, direct flow trib. severe surface erosion, direct to river, shorelineflow erosion moderate surface erosion, no ditch moderate shoulder erosion, poor shaping, moderate surface ero- sion, bare soil, unstable construc- totion site, direct trib, shore- flow line erosion stockpiled soils unstable culvert inlet and outlet and undersized, clogged culvert, ditch capability exceeded, direct to trib flow dential Driveway/ Driveway/ residential Land Use State Road/ Beach/ resi- Private Road 4-I 4-J State road to river direct flow 50' x 80' High High High Med 4-L State road 4-L State 4-K State road 4-K State road 5-A Town 5-B 6-A road 6-B Private 4-H road Town severe surface erosion nr nr nr 5-C road 5-D Private Town road nr sand winter on road 50' Low Low Low Med 4-G Town road 4-G Town Seg. #
64
Recommendations Recommendations vegetate, erosion controls, terrace, terrace, controls, vegetate, erosion bridge stabilize vegetate re-ditch, pave, controls, erosion re-ditch, vegetate, culvert, build up rd., stabilize new or road or outlet, reshape culver inlet ditch re-stone/gravel controls, erosion shoulder or culvert inlet vegetate, stabilize seed outlet, new surface material, and mulch more needed rip rap ter- basin, detention buffer, establish mulch seed and race, turnout, or road culvert, reshape re-ditch, new ditch, turnout con- erosion re-ditch, maintenance, culvert stabilize trols, new culvert, seed road, inlet or outlet, reshape and mulch buffer establish erosion re-ditch, buffer, establish re- material, surface controls, new ditch shape culvert inlet stabilize controls, erosion or outlet GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Priority Priority Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Low Low Low Med Low Low High Med High Med High High Med Rating Rating Impact Med Low Low High 100' Med Med Med Med 100' Med Med Med 300' Low Low Low Med 300' Low Low Low Area 40' both 40' x 50' High 20' x 30' High Med High Med Med Med Med 50' x 30' Low Low Low Med 400' both 300' x 10'300' x Med Med Med Med 400' x 20'400' x Med 50'400' x Med High High High Low High Med Affected Affected sides of rd sides of rd. Source of Pollution Source of Pollution slight ditch erosion, bare soil 20' Low Low Low Med severe shoulder erosion, unsta- ble bridge, bare soil, direct flow to trib. slight shoulder erosion, bare soil, to river direct flow slight surface erosion, lack of buffer moderate shoulder erosion, un- stable boat access, moderate surface erosion, to direct flow trib slight surface erosion, slight shoulder erosion, bare soil moderate shoulder erosion, un- stable culvert I/o, poor shaping, lack of buffer, bare soil, direct to trib, stockpiled soil flow slight surface erosion unstable culver I/o, poor shaping, direct to trib. flow severe shoulder erosion, severe ditch erosion, unstable construc- totion site, direct trib. flow moderate shoulder erosion, poor to trib, stock- shaping, direct flow piled soil moderate shoulder erosion, direct to trib flow slight surface erosion, bare soil, bare fields town road town residential residential Land Use Town road/ Town Town road/ Town Agriculture/ 6-I 6-F Town road 6-F Town 6-E Town road 6-E Town road 7-A Town Road 7-B State road 7-E Town 6-C Town road 6-C Town road 6-D Town 6-H road 7-C Town road 7-D Town 6-G Seg. #
65
Recommendations Recommendations establish buffer, vegetate buffer, establish material surface new buffer, establish re- culvert inlet or outlet, stabilize place culvert new culvert, new buffer, establish material surface mulch and seed controls, erosion investigate further stabilize controls, vegetate, erosion outlet culvert inlet and vegetate, detention pond con- vegetate, erosion maintenance, seed and ditch, road or trols, reshape mulch controls erosion culvert inlet or outlet stabilize vege- maintenance, buffer, establish culvert, controls, new tate, erosion new culvert inlet or outlet, stabilize rip rap, reshape material, surface hydro and mulch, ditch, seed road or seed diversion vegetate, turnout, GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Priority Priority Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical nr nr nr nr nr nr Low Low Low Med Low Low Rating Rating Impact High Med Med High Low Low Low Med Low Med Med Low 75' Low Low Low Med Low Low 75' Low 100' Med Low Low High 100' Med Low Low Area 200' of 500' of stream stream 50' x 50' Med Med Med Med 50' x 20' Low Low Low Med 100' x 50'100' x Low Med Low Low 50' x 100' nr nr nr nr Affected Affected direct flow to trib direct flow Source of Pollution Source of Pollution moderate shoulder erosion, lack of buffer severe surface erosion, severe shoulder erosion, severe ditch erosion, poor shaping, lack of buffer, moderate surface erosion, bare soil, unstable construction site, ditch capability exceeded, to trib direct flow slight shoulder erosion, road sur- face breaking up moderate shoulder erosion, direct to trib flow cloudy stream,cloudy erosion upstream possibly from large gravel opera- tion moderate shoulder erosion, mod- erate ditch erosion, clogged cul- vert, direct flow to river moderate surface erosion 50' x 100' Med Low Low High slight shoulder erosion, lack of buffer direct flow to unstable culvert I/o, trib slight surface erosion, slight ditch erosion, to direct river flow slight shoulder erosion, moderate shoulder erosion, bare soil, direct to trib, lack of buffer flow Ag road town road town state road Land Use Agriculture/ Town Road/ Logging Op- Commercial/ eration/ state 9 7-I Town road 7-I Town 7-F Commercial 8-A 8-B Residential unstable construction site 50' x 100' Low Low Low 9-A road Med 9-B State 7-H State road 7-H State road 8-C Town 8-D Commercial lack of buffer, 9-C 7-G Town road 7-G Town 10-A Town road 10-A Town Seg. #
66
Recommendations Recommendations new culvert, stabilize culvert inlet or culvert, stabilize new outlet rip rap, controls, vegetate, erosion geo textile bridge, on diversion fence to keep cows buffer, establish out of river pool, rip rap, diversion plunge diversion rip rap, build up controls, vegetate, erosion rap rip material, surface rd., new vegetate , turnout, diversion maintain road, remove sand buffer, erosion establish rip rap, ditch or road controls, reshape and vegetate rip rap maintain road, remove sand use phosphorus free fertilizer vegetate GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Priority Priority Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Low Med High Low Low High Low Med Med High High Low High Med High Med Low Low High Low Med Low Med Low Low High Low Med Low Rating Rating Impact n/a Low Low Low Med Low n/a Low Low yards yards yards yards Area 20 sq. ' Med Low Med Med 150 sq. 100 sq. 100 sq. 200 sq. 200 sq.' High Med Med High 10' x 35' High High Med Med 35' x 15' Med Low Low High 40' x 50' High Med Med High 40' x 40' High Med Low High 20 acres High High Med Med Affected Affected Source of Pollution Source of Pollution moderate surface erosion, direct to river flow slight surface erosion, slight shoulder erosion, bare soil, direct to trib. flow severe shoulder erosion, bare soil slight surface erosion, slight shoulder erosion, bare soil, direct to trib. flow slight surface erosion, winter sand buildup, to trib direct flow severe surface erosion, poor to trib shaping, direct flow moderate shoulder erosion, mod- erate ditch erosion, lack of buffer, moderate surface erosion, direct to river flow severe shoulder erosion, bare soil, direct flow to river moderate shoulder erosion, to trib. direct flow moderate shoulder erosion, lack of buffer, moderate surface ero- sion, bare soil, to riverdirect flow livestock in stream, lack of buffer, to river direct flow slight shoulder erosion 1 acre Med Low Low High path Driveway/ Driveway/ residential residential residential residential residential State road/ Land Use Agriculture/ Log road/trail/ Ag/town road/ road/ Ag/town Ag/town road/ Ag/town 10-I Town road 10-I Town 10-F road 11-F Town 10-B 10-E road 11-A Town 11-B 11-E 10-C 10-D Residential unstable construction site road Med 10-H Town Low Low High road 11-C Town 11-D Town road slight shoulder erosion 10-G Town road 10-G Town Seg. #
67
Recommendations Recommendations Stabilize culvert extending by riprap and armor ditch grass. w/ Stabilize culvert and extend buffer on smaller stream; also riprap shoulder. Reset / stabilize culvert; establish buffer; establish detention basin at storm drain outlet; riprap banking & eroding drainage. Insert bilge sock into storm drain and establish WQ monitoring. Pave or addsurface new material to parking buffer; lot; extend use curbing or change plowing direction. NMP needed for entire site; install crushed stone pads for equip washing. Stream bank plantings; stop stream bank dumping. Priority Priority Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Rating Rating Impact RIVER SURVEY (see Survey Segment Map, page 71) (see Survey SURVEY RIVER Med Med Med Med nr nr nr nr nr High nr nr Med Med nr High Area 50' x 5' Med High Med Low 150' x ? 150' x nr nr nr nr 75' x 25' Med Med Med Med 150' x 50'150' x Low Low Low Med 75' x 100' High Med Med High Affected Affected direct flow to direct flow to direct flow Source of Pollution Source of Pollution Unstable culvert ditch; slight road shoulder erosion. Farm ponds drain to somestream algae present.w/ Unstable culvert (failing bank on downstream side) direct flow w/ to stream and severe road shoulder erosion. Unstable culvert (resulting in fail- to streaming bank) direct flow w/ and moderate road shoulder erosion. Also road sand and hanging culvert. to stream;Direct flow road sand from storm drains; altered/ channel; stream straightened algae-choked stream; trash in stream. to stream; bare soil Direct flow parking lot; inadequate buffer; severe bank erosion; plow- snow ing to stream; trash; algae; chan- nelized stream; clogging culverts. to stream;Direct flow road sand; storm drains discharge to directly stream; trash; channelized stream full of silt. Unstable culvert w/ stream; roof gutters drain to park- ing lot; severe surface erosion edge of parking lot draining into stream; thermal pollution. to stream; field maint. Direct flow equip. & fert. 60' from stream (chem transport to stream) Streambank erosion; no shoreline debris.dumped buffer; yard Land Use 1-1 State road 1-1 State 1-2 State road 1-2 State road 1-3 State road 2-1 Town lot 2-2 Parking road 2-3 Town 2-4 Recreation 2-5 Recreation road 2-6 Town Seg. # TABLE D.3. NPS SITES - 2004 NORTHERN GREAT WORKS TABLE D.3. NPS SITES - NORTHERN GREAT 2004 68
other stream crossing for trail. Recommendations Recommendations Establish plantings; buffer install infil- w/ tration trench for road discharge. Cut back and stabilize culvert; install plunge pool; storm drain treatment; fenc- ing for top of bank. Clean/enlarge/lengthen/stabilize culvert; install plunge pool; stone. armor ditch w/ Reshape bridge shoulder and stabilize banks. GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Priority Priority Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical ed Med Low Med Establish buffer plantings. w/ Rating Rating Impact nr nr nr nr High High High Med Rip rap bank; treat storm drains. High High High Med Area 50' x 8' High High High Med 150' x ? High High High Med Engineered solution. 10' x 30' Low 30' x 10' Low High Low Med Med Remove sand. winter High Med 20' x 10' High Med Med High Bridge or 6'120' x High Med High Med 100' x 75' Low 300' x 20' Low High Low High Med Stop dumping and move soil pile. High Med Remove sand andwinter stormwater. Affected Affected Source of Pollution Source of Pollution Direct flow to stream;Direct flow slight winter sand erosion; storm drain on bridge drains to river. to stream;Direct flow shoreline/ surface erosion; lack of buffer; pavement runoff into stream. to stream; trash; float- Direct flow ing algae; sand; artificialwinter stream alignment. Direct flow to stream;Direct flow bare and stockpiled soil; slight erosion; dump. debris woody to stream; insufficient Direct flow severe erosion; yard buffer; dumping.waste to stream from storm Direct flow drains; artificial stream alignment; algae; trash. Streambank erosion/ undercutting; improper culvert alignment; stream runs 400' underground in pipe. to stream; severe Direct flow erosion from adjacent trail. to Unstable culvert; direct flow stream; moderate ditch erosion. to stream; severe Direct flow erosion around bridge. Unstable culvert; bare soil; severe surface erosion over cul- vert. Land Use 3-2 State road 3-1 3-2 State Driveway Lack of buffer. 3-3 Cemetery 20' x 100' Low Low Low Med Extend buffer plantings.w/ 3-5 Town road 3-5 Town 3-6 Easement Insufficient buffer. 250' x 15' M 3-4 Cemetery road 3-7 Town 2-8 Town road 2-8 Town 2-9 Recreation 4-1 Trail / path 2-7 Town road 2-7 Town 3-8A Town road 3-8A Town 3-8B Town road 3-8B Town Seg. #
69
Recommendations Recommendations Lengthen/stabilize culvert; armor ditch stone or grass.w/ Reshape/veg trail shoulder; establish plantings. buffer w/ Establish plantings; buffer build ATVw/ x-ing? Install ditch turn out; est. stable ATV trail / mulch eroding areas. Install plunge pool / direct leavingwater culvert. Install plunge pool; armor/reshape bank- ing stone; install rip rap.w/ GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Priority Priority Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Low Low Low Low Med Establish buffer plantings. w/ Rating Rating Impact Low Low Low Med Low Med Med Low Extend buffer plantings.w/ nr High nr High Low High Med nr High High Armor ditch stone. w/ nr Med Replace culvert or remove lining. Med Med Med Med Area 5' x 5' Med Low Low High Establish buffer plantings. w/ 6' x 4' Low Med Med Low Clean culvert; install plunge pool. 10' x 6' Low 5' x 10' Med Low Med Low Med Med Clean culvert. Med Stabilize culvert. 20' x 10' High Med Med High 15' x 20' Low 50' x 50' Med Med Med Low Low Med Clean/enlarge/stabilize culvert. Med Affected Affected rect flow to rect flow to rect flow Source of Pollution Source of Pollution Direct flow to stream; slight Direct flow bridge shoulder erosion; shoreline/surface erosion. to stream; severe trail Direct flow shoulder erosion; insufficient buffer; moderate surface erosion. Insufficient buffer; moderate surface erosion; moderate trail shoulder erosion. Unstable/clogged culvert; direct to stream. flow Unstable culvert outlet; direct to stream. flow Clogged culvert; di Clogged culvert; di House lot pipe discharge to pond; unstable culvert outlet. Culvert liner degrading; direct to stream. flow Unstable culvert outlet; severe bank erosion. Unstable culvert outlet; severe bank erosion. stream. stream. Unstable culvert; direct flow to Unstable culvert; direct flow wetland; severe ditch erosion; severe surface erosion. Land Use 4-3 Trail / path 4-4 Trail / path 4-5 Trail / path road 4-7 road 5-1 Town road Town Undercutting bank after bridge. 5-2 Town 5-3 road 5-4 road Town 5-5 Town Unstable culvert. Residential Horse paddock next to pond. road 5-7 Town 100' road 5-8 road 6-1 Town road 6-2 Town Low 6-3 Town Low Low Med Stabilize culvert. nr nr nr nr 4-6 Trail / path to stream. Direct flow 100' x 50' High road Med 5-6 Town Med High 4-2 Town road 4-2 Town Seg. #
70
e ditch w/ stone;e rip rap. ditch w/ Recommendations Recommendations Remove debris; establish buffer plantings.w/ Install plunge pool; stabilize culvert; ar- mor banking stone; reshape/vegw/ shoulder. Install plunge pool level spreader;w/ es- tablish buffer plantings;w/ rip rap. Remove sand; install runoffwinter di- verter & detention basin. Enlarge culvert; install plunge pool; armor ditch stone; install turnout; remove w/ sand.winter Clean/enlarge culvert; install plunge pool; armor ditch stone; remove w/ winter sand. Install plunge pool; remove sand; winter reshape/veg shoulder; est. buffer. GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Priority Priority Cost Cost w w Med High Armor ditch stone; install ripw/ rap. Level Level Technical Technical Rating Rating Impact High Med High Med High Med High Med Low High Med High Armor ditch stone; install ripw/ rap. High Low Med High High High High Med High High High Med Med Med Med Med High Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Armor/reshap Area Affected Affected direct flow to rect flow to rect flow Source of Pollution Source of Pollution Unstable culvert; direct flow to Unstable culvert; direct flow stream; severe ditch erosion; bank erosion; severe surface erosion. Hanging culvert; di to Undercut bank; direct flow stream; ditch capability ex- ceeded; bank erosion. stream; bank erosion; severe surface erosion. Direct flow to stream; dump site Direct flow appliances,w/ oil barrels, gas tanks, tires, trash, etc. Direct flow to stream;Direct flow moderate road shoulder & surface erosion. Undersized culvert; stream; mod. shoulder and sur- face erosion. Unstable & partially clogged cul- vert; direct flow to stream; bank and surface erosion. Gully erosion from road; hanging culvert; moderate shoulder and surface erosion. to stream; severe Direct flow ditch / mod. shoulder erosion. Land Use 6-6 Town road 6-5 6-6 Town road Town Severe surface erosion. road 6-7 Town road 6-8 Town High Lo 6-4 Dump site 6-4 Dump 6-10 Town road 6-10 Town 6-12 Town road 6-11 6-12 Town road 6-13 6-14 Town road 6-15 6-16 Town road 6-17 Town nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 6-18 nr nr nr nr Seg. #
71
Recommendations Recommendations Enlarge/stabilize culvert; install plunge pool; install turnout; remove sand;winter est. buffer. Clean culvert; remove sand; winter armor pipe on N side of road. Stabilize/armor culvert; install roof drip- line trench; remove d/w grader berms; install runoff diverter. GWR Watershed Management Plan– Appendix D Appendix Plan– Management Watershed GWR Priority Priority Cost Cost Level Level Technical Technical Rating Rating Impact nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr Med High Med Med nr Low nr nr Stabilize/armor culvert; install rip rap. nr nr nr nr Stabilize bank around culvert. nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr Area Affected Affected Source of Pollution Source of Pollution Unstable/clogged culvert; direct to stream; moderateflow shoulder erosion; no buffer; trash/ debris. Clogged culvert; slight road shoulder erosion. Hanging culvert; slight road shoulder erosion; mod. surface erosion. Culvert liner degrading; ditch capability exceeded; large open lawn. Direct flow to stream; slight road Direct flow shoulder erosion; unstable bank; stream sediment fence breached. Bare soil; shoreline erosion; severe surface erosion. Direct flow to lake; bare soil; Direct flow shoreline erosion; insufficient buffer; moderate surface erosion. Direct flow to lake; bare soil; Direct flow shoreline erosion; insufficient buffer; moderate surface erosion; unstable beach/boat access. Unstable culvert outlet; direct to stream; slight road flow shoulder erosion; bare soil; severe surface erosion. Bare soil; shoreline erosion; debris/sediment from x-ing. Land Use 7-1 State road 7-1 State 7-2 Trail / path 6-19 Town road 6-19 Town 6-21 Town road 6-20 6-21 Town nr nr nr nr 6-22 Town road 6-22 Town road 6-23 Town 6-24 Town road 6-24 Town 6-25 Town road 6-25 Town 6-26 Private road 6-26 Private 6-27 Private road 6-27 Private Seg. #
72 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix F Appendix E: Watershed Maps
Map 1
73 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix F Map 2
74 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix F Map 3
75 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix E Map 4
76 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix E Map 5
77 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix E Map 6
78 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix E Map 7
79 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix E Map 8
80 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix E Map 9
81 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix E Map 10
82 Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix E Map 11
83 Protect and Restore- Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix F Bauneg Beg Lake Business Name
Bauneg Beg Lake was created in 1895 when the main stem of the Great Works River in Sanford and North Berwick was dammed. Today LAKE FACTS Bauneg Beg Lake provides the local community with recreational op- portunities such as swimming, boating and fishing and provides valu- Watershed: Great Works River able habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife.
Surrounding Towns: Water quality data for Bauneg Beg Lake was North Berwick, Sanford collected from 1975 – 1998. The results show that the potential for nuisance algae blooms on Watershed Area: 16.4 sq. mi. the lake is high. The water quality is below aver- age based on measures of Secchi disk transpar- Mean Depth: 9 ft. ency, total phosphorus (TP) and Chlorophyll-a. As a result, Bauneg Beg Lake is listed on the Max Depth: 29 ft. State’s “Nonpoint Source Pollution Priority Wa- A clear lake with small tershed List” due to poor water quality related to algal populations results in Surface Area: 188 acres stormwater runoff to the Great Works River north deep Secchi disk readings of Bauneg Beg Lake, and from land uses along and low levels of Chloro- phyll-a and TP. Avg. Transparency: 3 meters the shoreline and within the watershed.
Flushing Rate: 8.8 times/yr Bauneg Beg Lake supports a warm water fishery which includes spe- cies of Brown bullhead, Chain pickerel, Common shiner, Large and Watershed Groups: Smallmouth bass, Pumpkinseed, White and Yellow perch and White sucker. Cold water fish such as trout need at least 5 parts per million ⇒ Bauneg Beg Lake Association (ppm) of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water to survive, and even ⇒ GWR Watershed Coalition higher levels to grow. DO levels in deeper, colder areas of Bauneg Beg Lake are far below this level as a result of ex- cess nutrient loading and algae production stem- ming from various land uses in the watershed. 84 Largemouth bass WaterGreat WorksQuality River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007
Water Clarity E. coli continued. By itself E. coli is generally not a threat to human Bauneg Beg Lake Historcial Water Clarity health but can be associated with disease-causing 5 2 3 7 th th 79 88 95 97 9 98 9 9 99 organisms. Between May 15 - Sept 30 the number 1 1977 1 1 1986 1 199 1 1 0 of E. coli bacteria of human origin may not exceed a geometric mean of 64/100 milliliters. While E. coli 1 levels were low in 2003 and 2004 sampling years, 2005 was measured at 75/100 milliliters. It is unclear 2 whether the source is human. In the 1999 survey, 3 pet waste was documented along the shoreline of Meters Below Surface Bauneg Beg Lake at 5 different locations. This type 4 of pollution can be eliminated by simply cleaning up BB Lake Min. Transparency DEP Standard after pets. Bauneg Beg’s water transparency declined from1978-1979 was poor Dissolved Oxygen through 1988 and began improving in the 1990’s. No new data has It is important to note that 4 of the 5 monitoring been collected since 1998. sites on the GWR north of Bauneg Beg stayed the same or increased in the number of dissolved Nonpoint Source Inventory A 1999 Watershed Survey for Bauneg Beg Lake oxygen violations in the 2003-4 seasons. DO levels revealed that 131 sites are currently impacting the at the Channel Lane monitoring site at the northern lake and have a high potential to directly impact water end of Bauneg Beg Lake is of particular concern. quality. Many of these sites were This monitoring station is located where the north- Nonpoint Source located on residential properties ern flowage of the main stem of the GWR widens out (NPS) Pollution - is and slows down Dissolved Oxygen- Bauneg Beg polluted runoff that and involved lack of adequate vegetated buffers and eroding to become Bau- Lake cannot be traced to a neg Beg Lake, 0 specific origin or start- water access sites. The Great 1 ing point, but appears Works River Watershed Coali- and has had con- 2 to flow from many dif- tion (GWRWC) in cooperation sistently low aver- 3 ferent sources. 4 with the York County Soil and age DO levels (64 -68%), with levels 5 Water Conservation District 6 Depth (m) Depth (YCSWCD), the Bauneg Beg Lake Association as low as 29%. 7 (BBLA), and the Maine DEP has since been taking Dissolved oxygen 8 in Class B rivers 9 part in restoration activities funded under a 319 imple- 0123456789 mentation project for Bauneg Beg Lake. should be greater DO (ppm) than or equal to 7 Low DO levels at monitoring sites on the E. coli ppm (or 75% GWR above BB Lake may be an indication Recent volunteer sampling efforts conducted by saturation) except of low DO levels in lake. the Great Works River Watershed Coalition for the period (GWRWC) above Bauneg Beg Lake point to a need critical to spawning of indigenous fish species (Oct for future sampling of Escherichia coli, or E. coli 1st – May 14th) when the 7 day mean dissolved oxy- in Bauneg Beg Lake. E. coli bacteria is an indication gen concentration shall not be less than 9.5 ppm. of the presence of fecal contamination in the water- shed. The sources of this contamination could be Simple Actions to Improve Water Quality from point sources such as wastewater treatment ⇒ Plant a buffer 250’ wide on shorefront plants discharges and/or stormwater overflows. The ⇒ Cover bare soil with mulch & ground covers bacteria could also originate from polluted runoff ⇒ Pick up after pets sources such as pet waste, livestock contamination ⇒ Terrace steep slopes and/or failing septic systems, or from nonhuman- ⇒ Create meandering paths to lake vs. straight ones associated sources such as native wildlife. ⇒ Volunteer to support the watershed effort
Bauneg Beg Lake Association Meetings Great Works River Watershed Coalition Last Sunday of each month ( May-August) Contact: Forrest Bell or Mike Cannon 9 am– Fish and Game Club—Sanford 85 PO Box 143, South Berwick, ME 03908 http://baunegbeglake.org/ 207-650-7597 or www.gwrwc.org Volunteers needed for river sampling and lab work CurrentGreat Works River Water Watershed Quality Management PlanTrends: - January 2007 Bauneg Beg Lake , 2006
E. coli
Recent sampling efforts in Bauneg E.Coli (col/100mL) Beg Lake have included the monitoring Inlet Outlet of Escherichia coli (E. Coli) bacteria at June 50 10 both the inlet and the outlet of the lake. July 13 20 E. coli bacteria is an indication of the Early August 38 Late August 127 6 presence of fecal contamination in the September 11 1 watershed. By itself E. coli is generally 2006 Average not a threat to human health but can be (Bauneg Beg 41 9 associated with disease-causing organ- Lake) isms. The sources of this contamination DEP Limit 194 could be from point sources such as Results of 2006 E.coli sampling in B. wastewater treatment plants discharges Beg were generally well below the DEP and/or stormwater overflows. The bacteria could also originate from polluted run- criteria of 194 colonies per 100 millili- ters. However, an elevated reading was off sources such as pet waste, livestock contamination and/or failing septic sys- noted in late August. tems, or from nonhuman-associated sources such as native wildlife.
Water Clarity The secchi disk transparency (SDT) of a lake is a measurement of how deep into a lake the sunlight can penetrate. Factors that interfere with light penetration include algae, water color, and sediment. Since algae is usually the most abundant factor, measuring transparency can be a way to measure the algae population.
Baune g Be g Lak e His tor cial Wate r Clar ity Bauneg Beg Lake 2006 Water Clarity 0 9 975 977 97 988 993 995 997 1 1 1 1982 1986 1 1 1 1 0 1
1 2 2 3 3 Surface Below Meters
4
Meters Below Surface 4 June July Early August Late August September BB Lake Min. Transparency DEP Standard DEP Standard B.Beg Min. Transparency Bauneg Beg’s water clarity declined from1978-1979 was poor The water clarity in Bauneg Beg Lake was near the DEP limit in June, through 1988 and began improving in the 1990’s. No new data was July, August and September of 2006. collected between 1998 and 2006.
Bauneg Beg Dissolved Oxygen, 2006 0246810 Dissolved Oxygen 0 DO (ppm ) Dissolved oxygen (DO) in lake water is critical to the survival of all 1 plants and animals, and therefore an indicator of water quality and the 2 level of life a waterbody can support. Bauneg Beg lake has a history of
3 DO depletion in deep, cold areas of the lake (below 4 meters), with DO levels dropping from 8 ppm at the surface to 0.2 ppm below 4 meters. 4
Depth (meters) Recent DO levels in Bauneg Beg Lake have shown a similar trend. Dur- 5 ing the most recent sampling event, September 2006, DO levels 6 dropped from 9 ppm at the surface to 0.2 pmm at 5 meters. This means
7 that the lower86 half of the lake has very little oxygen available for plants June July and animals. Early August Late August September